Skip to main content

Full text of "Draft waterfront land use plan"

See other formats


C3 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DRAFT WATERFRONT LAND USE PLAN 



For Review by the Public and 
the San Francisco Port Commission 



Revised 
November 4, 1994 



DO^t imfntS HEPT. 
NOV 8 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




DOCUMENTS DEFT. 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



r Review of the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 



tLand Use Plan ("Draft Plan ") is a working draft document, 
the Draft Plan were developed primarily by the Waterfront 
)ard), a body created by the San Francisco Port Commission 
Port Commission consideration and adoption. 

eived the Draft Plan from the Advisory Board on July 26. 
wed the proposed policies from August until October. This 
hts proposed Port Commission revisions to the Advisory 
>rt Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Plan 
svisions on November 15, 1994 at 4:00 pm. in the Port 
e Ferry Building. The Port Commission intends to consider 
ivith revisions, at a second public meeting, the date of which 
November 15th public hearing. Thereafter, the Draft Plan 
finished form, with final edits, new maps and illustrations, 
ire made by the Commission. 



An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Draft Plan, which will take 
approximately 1-1/2 years to complete and is a prerequisite to Port Commission adoption of a 
final Waterfront Land Use Plan. During that period, various legislative amendments necessary 
to implement the Plan will be drafted and presented for public review and comment. 

If you have any questions regarding the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan, or the ongoing 
planning process for this project, of if you would like additional copies of the Draft Waterfront 
Land Use Plan, please call the Waterfront Plan Hotline at (415) 274-0354. 



D 

REF 

387.1097 
Sa528d 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



223 04180 1391 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



fit 



3 



a. 



DRAFT WATERFRONT LAND USE PLAN 



For Review by the Public and 
the San Francisco Port Commission 



Revised 
November 4, 1994 



NOV 8 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Notice Regarding Further Review of the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 



This version of the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan ("Draft Plan ") is a working draft document. 
The land use policies proposed in the Draft Plan were developed primarily by the Waterfront 
Plan Advisory Board (Advisory Board), a body created by the San Francisco Port Commission 
to recommend a land use plan for Port Commission consideration and adoption. 



The Port Commission formally received the Draft Plan from the Advisory Board on July 26, 
1994. The Commission then reviewed the proposed policies from August until October. This 
version of the Draft Plan highlights proposed Port Commission revisions to the Advisory 
Board's recommendations. The Port Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Plan 
and, in particular, its proposed revisions on November 15, 1994 at 4:00 pm. in the Port 
Commission Room, Suite 3100, The Ferry Building. The Port Commission intends to consider 
whether to endorse the Draft Plan, with revisions, at a second public meeting, the date of which 
will be determined at the end of the November 15th public hearing. Thereafter, the Draft Plan 
will be reproduced in a graphically finished form, with final edits, new maps and illustrations, 
incorporating all amendments that are made by the Commission. 

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Draft Plan, which will take 
approximately 1-1/2 years to complete and is a prerequisite to Port Commission adoption of a 
final Waterfront Land Use Plan. During that period, various legislative amendments necessary 
to implement the Plan will be drafted and presented for public review and comment. 

If you have any questions regarding the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan, or the ongoing 
planning process for this project, of if you would like additional copies of the Draft Waterfront 
Land Use Plan, please call the Waterfront Plan Hotline at (415) 274-0354. 



D REF 387.1097 Sa528d 
1994 

San Francisco (Calif.). 
Waterfront Plan 
Draft waterfront land 
" use plan. 
1994 . 



3 1223 04180 1391 



S:F. PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOV 8 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Ferry Building 
'San Francisco. CA 94111 
Telephone 415 274 0400 
Telex 275940 PSFUR 
Fax 415 274 0528 
Cable SFPORJCCMM 
■wt ■. _ . . Writer 

November 2, 1994 



Dear Interested Citizen: 

This letter accompanies the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan, with proposed Port 
Commission revisions, published for citizen review by the San Francisco Port Commission 
on November 4, 1994 (the "Revised Draft Plan"). 

The Revised Draft Plan reflects an almost four year public planning process to determine 
the future of the 7 1/2 miles of the City's waterfront, from the Hyde Street Pier to India 
Basin, under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco. In early 1991, the Port 
Commission created the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board to prepare and recommend a land 
use plan for Port property and to ensure a comprehensive planning process that carefully 
considers the wide diversity of perspectives of all interest groups that care about the Port's 
future. The 27 Advisory Board members were appointed based on recommendations from 
the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor, as well as through a solicitation of interested 
citizens, maritime industry representatives, Port tenants, labor unions, neighborhood 
organizations, architects, urban planners and other professionals. 

Between mid- 1991 and mid- 1994, the Advisory Board held 75 twice monthly public 
meetings. In addition, numerous community workshops and neighborhood meetings were 
held during this period. Hundreds of citizens testified at these meetings, sharing their hopes 
for San Francisco's waterfront with the Advisory Board, and helping to form a consensus 
about the Port's future. 

On July 26th, the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board presented their recommended Draft 
Waterfront Land Use Plan to the Port Commission for their review. From August through 
October, the Advisory Board's recommendations were comprehensively reviewed. The Port 
has identified proposed revisions that would enable the Port to better meet its responsibilities 
to the people of San Francisco and to the people of the State of California as the trustee of 
State public trust property. 




D REF 387.1097 Sa528d 
1994 

San Francisco (Calif.)* 
Waterfront Plan 
Draft waterfront land 
use plan. 
1994 . 



3 1223 04180 1391 

S.f. PUBLIC LIBRARY 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DRAFT WATERFRONT LAND USE PLAN FOR REVIEW 
BY THE PUBLIC AND THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 

Table of Contents 

(Note: In this draft, each Chapter is page-numbered separately. Please use page headers 
and page numbers to keep track of where you are in the Draft Plan). 

PROLOGUE. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION TO THE PORT 

GOALS OF THE PLAN 

GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 

(This Chapter describes the acceptable uses contained in the Waterfront 
Land Use Plan, and general policies that apply to all sites on which these 
uses would be permitted on a long-term and interim basis. Chapter 3 
also identifies unacceptable non-maritime land uses, pursuant to 
Proposition H.) 

AREA OBJECTIVES 

(This Chapter describes Plan objectives for the following five areas of the 
Port, and "Standards for New Development" for specific sites within each 
area: Fisherman's Wharf, Northeast Waterfront, Ferry Building 
Waterfront, South Beach/China Basin and Southern Waterfront.) 

IMPLEMENTATION 

(This Chapter provides an overview of legislative issues associated with 
land uses proposed in the Draft Plan; implementation objectives and an 
outline for a streamlined entitlement process; and financial implications of 
the Plan.) 

APPENDIX A: Background Analysis for Water-Dependent Activities 
APPENDIX B: Text of Proposition H Ordinance 
APPENDIX C. Glossary of Terms 

AC/pj-L/WFPCOVER 



CHAPTER 1: 
CHAPTER 2: 
CHAPTER 3: 



CHAPTER 4: 
CHAPTER 5: 



Page 2 



I believe that the Port's proposed revisions uphold the overall integrity of the Advisory 
^^^^LdBtioJxo ibc Port Commission and build upon the consensus that tte 
Board srecommenud Advisory Board has done an outstanding job and has 

greatly appreciated. 

the Port's oroDOsed revisions are redlined in the Revised Draft Plan 

Waterfront Plan hotline at (415) 274-0354 for the date of the heanng. 

x i ™. look forward to vour attendance at the hearing or any written comments JFOU 
wTsfto p™"de "n Se m^toe Please do no. hesitate to call the Waterfront Plan 1 M 
Tf you h^ve any quesUons or would like any further information about the Watcr.ron, Urf 
Use Plan. Thank you very much for your interest in the future of the Fort. 



Sincerely, 

DENNIS P. BOUEY 
Executive Director 



Lxiircv 



PROLOGUE 



San Franciscans are justifiably proud of their City, not only for its natural beauty, but also 
because of the tremendous civic endowments bestowed upon it by prior generations. 
Through the forethought of our ancestors, we enjoy the splendor of Golden Gate Park, the 
grand design and monumental architecture of Civic Center, expansive views from Coit 
Tower, and the richness of our neighborhoods. Living in the midst of these many gifts has 
inspired each successive generation to make contributions to the civic good. Past 
generations for the most part, however, turned their backs to the waterfront, not out of a 
lack of appreciation, but because its function was almost singularly as a place of industry. 
Although the grand arches of the bulkhead buildings arc meritorious contributions to our 
architectural heritage, they arc, in fact, mere facades, built to obscure the gritty reality 1 of 
work on the waterfront. The Ferry Building alone stands out as a major civic improvement 
on the waterfront, constructed as a gateway to usher visitors in and out of the City. 

San Franciscans now have the opportunity to look anew at their waterfront. Sweeping 
changes in the technology of transportation and commerce have opened up the water's edge 
to new possibilities. We all cherish the memories of the Bay alive with the sights and 
sounds ofwaterborne commerce — ships vying for a berth at the piers, goods piled high on 
the deck awaiting the able hands of longshoremen, and workers and sailors plying their 
trades up and down The Embarcadero. 

In fact, most of these activities can still be seen along the waterfront, although modern 
efficiencies have reordered the way they occur. One container ship can carry the load of 
numerous clipper ships; one crane does the work of countless longshoremen. Bridges and 
freeways replaced ferries and barges in conveying people and goods throughout the region. 
These trends not only affect San Francisco, they also have led to waterfront evolutions in 
cities like New York, Boston, Baltimore and Portland. Instead of lamenting the changes 
brought about by these innovations, San Francisco tradition dictates that we seize this 
opportunity to create a waterfront that will instill pride in future generations of San 
Franciscans. 

The opportunity to develop a Waterfront Land Use Plan comes at a propitious moment in 
history. Through citizen activism, the waterfront survived the days when "bigger is better " 
was the catch phrase of new development, and the Bay was viewed as an obstacle to 
construction. Today the concepts of citizen participation, environmental protection, historic 
preservation, and design review are well established, providing the critical foundation for 
a successful revitalization of the waterfront. 

This effort, perhaps unlike others before it, will also be aided by a new pragmatism in civic 
improvement efforts, brought on by the recognition that our financial resources must be as 
carefully managed as our natural resources. Gone are the days of federal and state grant 
programs flush with funds for public improvements, such as grand parks and open spaces 



Local voters can no longer support additional taxes for every worthy cause. The Port of 
San Francisco is a self-sufficient operation and so, if the transformation of the waterfront 
is to be realized, the Plan must be fashioned in the same way. While the vision for the 
waterfront should be no less grand because of this limitation, budget consciousness may 
dictate that the vision be achieved incrementally. Facilities that cannot be transformed 
immediately can nevertheless contribute to the effort through the revenue generated by 
interim uses. Private capital will be attracted to the waterfront, once San Franciscans 
achieve consensus on the land use plan, providing the certainty that is a precondition to 
reinvestment and revitalization. 

Through the three years of dedication and hard work by the citizens who have served on the 
Waterfront Plan Advisory Board and attended public meetings and workshops, and the staff 
of the Port, the Planning Department and other agencies, we present this proposal for 
citizen review. Embodied in the Plan's proposed policies and guidelines, land use 
classifications and technical provisions there is a new vision for the San Francisco 
waterfront. As you read this, we ask you to imagine: 

• a place for waterborne commerce and world trade 

• a place for recreational water use 

• a place for neighborhood residents 

• a place for waterborne transit 

• a place for public assembly 

• a place for our architectural heritage 

• a place to recall our colorful waterfront history 

• a place to celebrate our cultural diversity 

• a place for economic opportunity 

• a place to promenade 

• a place for nature and open space 

• a place for nourishment of mind and body 

• a place for . . . 

If we can imagine these places, then collectively we can achieve this vision and create a 
waterfront that all San Franciscans can enjoy and proudly call their own. 



NA/fj/L:drafipln.3\PR0L0 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



INTRODUCTION 

The Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan summarized below provides recommended land use policy 
for all property under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco, extending from the north end 
of Fisherman's Wharf to India Basin to the south. This Draft Plan is the product of an 
intensive, three year public planning process conducted by the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board. 

The Waterfront Plan Advisory Board (Advisory Board) was created by the Port Commission to 
prepare and recommend a comprehensive land use plan for Port Commission adoption. The 27- 
member Advisory Board is a diverse group of individuals representing the Mayor, Board of 
Supervisors and Port Commission whose varied backgrounds reflect a broad range of 
perspectives and interests in the use of the Port's property, including maritime industry 
representatives, Port tenants, labor unions, neighborhood organizations, architects, urban 
planners and other professionals. 

The Advisory Board conducted an intensive review of all matters affecting the development of 
land use policy for the waterfront during three years of twice-monthly public meetings. In 
addition, numerous other community workshops and public forums were held to maximize 
citizen input. Upon completing its evaluation of the myriad land use, regulatory, social, 
financial and other issues pertinent to the Port, the Advisory Board recommended a balanced 
Waterfront Land Use Plan that: 

• Actively promotes continuation and expansion of industrial, commercial and 
recreational maritime activities; 

• Promotes new open space and public access, as well as improvements to existing 
open spaces; 

• Recognizes the Port's financial needs as an enterprise agency of the City and the 
role that revenue-generating uses play in enabling the Port to support maritime 
uses, open space and other public benefits, as well as provide entertaining 
activities that enhance public enjoyment of the waterfront; 

• Provides flexibility by identifying a range of acceptable land uses for Port 
properties, that will allow the Port to quickly adapt to fluctuating economic, 
political, and social conditions that influence waterfront development 

• Encourages more efficient use of the Port's underutilized facilities by allowing a 
broad range of interim uses; 



i 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



• Identifies City and regional land use policies and regulations that should be 
reassessed and modified, if necessary, to implement the Plan; 

• Establishes a framework for streamlining the entitlement process for new 
development projects; 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PORT 

Most of the Port's property is former public tidelands, which is impressed with a "public trust" 
on behalf of all the people of California. The Port, as trustee of the property since 1969, is 
required to promote maritime commerce, navigation and fisheries, as well as to protect natural 
resources and develop recreational facilities for public use on these public lands. 

The Port oversees a broad range of commercial, maritime and public activities that are integrated 
into the local, regional, national and international economy. Most of the Port's existing fmger 
piers north of China Basin were built in the early 1900's to support break-bulk cargo shipping, 
shipbuilding and fishing industries. Over time, the introduction of container shipping and other 
technological and economic changes in the cargo industry, and the reduction in U.S. shipbuilding 
and repair operations have marked the decline of industrial maritime uses north of China Basin. 
These operations now are concentrated in the southern waterfront, south of Mariposa Street. 
Today, cruise, excursion boat, ferry, recreational boat and other maritime uses, as well as some 
commercial and industrial activities occupy portions of the piers north of China Basin. 
However, many of the Port's facilities are deteriorating, requiring increasingly more costly 
improvements that inhibit the Port's ability to fully utilize its property and the public's access 
to the waterfront. 

The Port's public trust responsibilities and requirements for maintaining its aging facilities 
impose a substantial fmancial burden that is exacerbated by the unique financial and budgetary 
framework within which the Port operates. Unlike other local agencies, the Port receives no 
financial support from the City, and relies almost solely on revenues from property under its 
stewardship to fund maritime, public access and open space improvements, maintain property 
and meet its administrative expenses. Over time, increases in the maintenance costs have 
outpaced growth in revenues. Increasingly restrictive interpretations of land use regulations over 
the last 10 years also have contributed to the Port's financial difficulties by limiting revenue- 
generating land use and development opportunities. In addition, the recent departure of a number 
of shipping lines, has played a role in the financial difficulties the Port now is facing, leading 
to a net loss of 36 jobs at the Port. These changes have increasingly limited the Port's ability 
to undertake important capital improvement projects, and sustain maintenance and other 
administrative functions. Although the Port is undertaking a number of corrective actions to 
address this serious situation, the Draft Plan a4se will help the Port enter the 21st century as a 
stronger enterprise agency of the City, by providing a framework for the stewardship of the 
Port's property - its greatest resource. 



ii 



m 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



In spite of these recent setbacks, there are many positive and exciting changes that have occurred 
or are underway along the waterfront that promise new opportunities for use and public 
enjoyment of the Port waterfront. The Draft Plan seeks to build upon these changes. For 
example, the demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway and construction of the Waterfront 
Transportation Projects will establish new transportation connections in a newly landscaped and 
beautified setting that reunites the City with its waterfront. The Port, together with the citizenry 
of San Francisco, are now confronted with the challenge of reshaping the edge of this great City. 
The visions embodied in the Waterfront Land Use Plan provide a place for almost everything 
San Franciscan's desire. With open minds, constructive criticism and cooperative spirit, San 
Franciscans will create a blueprint for action that will be a credit to this generation of San 
Franciscans for years to come. 

CHAPTER 2: GOALS OF THE WATERFRONT LAND USE PLAN 

Preparation of the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan has been guided by six goals that will enable 
the Port to achieve the Waterfront Plan's overarching goal of reuniting the City with its 
waterfront through implementation of the Draft Plan. 

A Working Waterfront: Port lands should continue to be reserved to meet the current and 
future needs of cargo shipping, fishing, cruises, ship repair, ferries and excursion boats, 
recreational boating and other water-dependent activities. 

A Revitalized Port Providing New Jobs for San Franciscans: New investment should stimulate 
the revitalization of the waterfront, providing new jobs, revenues, public amenities and other 
benefits to the Port, the City and the State and should seek to reflect the City 's ethnic and gender 
diversity in Port business opportunities. 

A Diversity of Activities and People: Port lands should host a diverse and exciting array of 
maritime, commercial, entertainment, civic, open space, recreation and other waterfront 
activities for all San Franciscans and visitors to enjoy. 

Access Along the Waterfront: A network of parks, plazas, walkways, open spaces and 
integrated transportation improvements should improve access to, and enhance the enjoyment 
and appreciation of, the Bay environment. 

An Evolving Waterfront, Mindful of its Past and Future: Improvements should respect and 
enhance the waterfront's historic character, while also creating new opportunities for San 
Franciscans to integrate Port activities into their daily lives. 



iii 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



Urban Design Worthy of the Waterfront's Setting: The design of new developments should 
be of exemplary quality and should highlight visual and physical access to and from the Bay, 
while respecting the waterfront's rich historic context and the character of neighboring 
development. 

CHAPTER 3: GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 

The Draft Plan provides opportunities for seven categories of land uses summarized below. 
Chapter 3 defines these use categories and presents general land use policies that apply to any 
site on which those activities currently exist or could be developed in the future. Chapter 3 also 
identifies unacceptable non-maritime land uses for the Port property within 100 feet of the shore. 

Maritime Uses - The Draft Plan actively promotes the continuation and expansion of maritime 
uses and support services at the Port. Plan policies encourage provision of visual or physical 
public access to maritime facilities, where feasible, to enhance the public's understanding of 
maritime operations. 

Transitional Maritime Sites - Piers 15-17, 19-23, 27-29, located north of Broadway in the 
northeast waterfront, currently are used as cargo-related facilities (a shipping terminal, foreign 
trade zone and general cargo warehouses). In light of industry trends and changing land use 
patterns in the area, these facilities are not likely to continue in maritime use over the long-term 
and have been designated as Transitional Maritime sites. General policies for the Transitional 
Maritime sites specifically encourage continued maritime use of the facilities for as long as 
feasible. However, if it becomes infeasible to operate any of these facilities exclusively in 
maritime use, the Draft Plan promotes relocating these facilities at the Port and instead providing 
a mix of maritime, commercial, recreational and public access uses on these northeastern 
waterfront sites. General policies include specific criteria that must be considered by the Port 
before determining that a Transitional Maritime site is no longer viable exclusively for maritime 
activities. 

Open Spaces and Public Access - General policies in the Draft Plan promote creation and 
maintenance of, and improvements to, waterfront public access and open spaces by establishing 
a "PortWalk, "wherever feasible, as new development occurs that maximizes connections along 
and to the Bay, and implements the regional Bay Trail, where applicable. Similarly, the 
provision of varied and significant forms of public access (e.g. physical access as well as visual 
and other forms of non-physical access) is a high priority of the Draft Plan. Other general 
policies promote public facilities (e.g. restrooms, information kiosks, small-scale retail 
convenience sales) that enhance the enjoyment and use of open spaces and public access areas. 
The Draft Plan acknowledges and discusses the need for financial assistance to create new open 
spaces and public access. General policies therefore encourage efforts to obtain open space 
funds whenever possible, and to link the creation of new open spaces and public access to new 
revenue-generating developments. 

• 

iv 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



Residential Use - Residential use opportunities are restricted to a number of the Port's inland 
properties ("seawall lots"), mainly north of China Basin, if the properties are not required to 
support maritime activities on adjacent piers. General policies for Residential uses encourage 
ground floor retail uses to maintain pedestrian activity in the area, and call for design measures 
that ensure an appropriate building scale and site orientation. 

Commercial Uses - The Draft Plan provides for a broad range of commercial land use 
opportunities which differ for piers and seawall lots. General policies strongly encourage 
commercial activities on piers as part of a mix of uses that includes maritime operations (e.g. 
cruise, excursion, ferries, historic ships), and integrated public access improvements that 
highlight the waterfront. Other general policies call for seeking revenue-generating uses in new 
developments to help fund public amenities and Port operations; pro viding affirmative action to 
maximize economic opportunities for minority, and women-owned, non profit and small 
businesses; promoting the use of public transit and minimizing n e w parking requir e m e nts. 
maximizing the efficient use of new and existing parking facilities, particularly for sites north 
of China Basin; and ensuring a high standard in the design of new developments. 

Other Uses - Other uses are allowed on a limited basis for specific sites: Power Plants 
(including co-generation facilities), Transit Facilities, Transportation Services, Sports Facilities, 
with 22,000 or fewer seats , Community Facilities, and Public Academic Institutions. General 
policies for Public Academic Institutions, Transportation Services and Community Facilities are 
included in Chapter 3. which encourage programs that are open to th e public on a fee basis, and 
which require a detailed campus plan prior to d e v e lopment. There are no general policies 
indicated for the other few two uses (Power Plants and Sport Facilities) in Chapter 3. However 
site-specific development standards for these activities are included in Chapter 4, Area 
Objectives. 

Interim Uses - The Draft Plan introduces specific policies for interim uses on Port property, 
which to date have never been consistently defined. The Port's mounting financial needs and 
inventory of underutilized facilities, combined with the need to reserve property for long-term 
maritime uses, dictate the development of clear policy to guide the interim use of Port property 
The Draft Plan proposes interim use policies for three different areas of the Port, which are 
described further below: areas north of China Basin within BCDC's 100 foot shoreline band, 
seawall lots north of China Basin, and property south of China Basin. The main distinguishing 
factor for these areas is maximum allowable term for interim uses. 

Areas North of China Basin and Within BCDC's 100 Foot Shoreline Band - Allows 
interim uses generally for five years with a possible five year extension. Longer interim 
uses will be considered only in exceptional cases and must be thoroughly and publicly 
reviewed, and, in e xc e ptional cas e s up to 10 y e ars within or on e x i sting structure ?. , 
r e quiring only minor repairs. Interim uses are those activities permitted in C-2 
("Community Business") zoning districts, except for uses that could present a particular 



v 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



threat to the environment or would pose nuisances or hazards to residents in nearby 
residential districts. 

Seawall Lots North of China Basin - Allows interim uses generally for five years and for 
additional five year terms if the use is compatible with surrounding activities .-with 
provisions for early termination of the lease by the Port if necessary. Longer interim 
uses will be considered only in exceptional cases and must be thoroughly and publicly 
reviewed. The interim uses are intended primarily to be open air uses. General policies 
discourage any construction of structures except for temporary or easily removable 
enclosures (e.g. carnival tents, converted railcars). The allowable interim uses, and the 
conditions which must be met for such uses, are the same as for the Shoreline Band 
interim use policies. 

Areas South of China Basin - Allows interim non-maritime uses generally for one to 10 
years, with exceptions for 20 to 30 years, given the uncertain timeframe for full 
utilization of the Port's container terminals and the general decline of the ship repair 
industry. General policies encourage interim open air uses that do not require large 
capital improvements, and other uses such as general warehousing, where the capital 
improvements for new structures ultimately may be re-used for maritime purposes. To 
the extent interim uses require longer terms, the general policies call for establishing 
procedures for determining that such interim uses will not undermine the Port's future 
maritime business opportunities. The range of allowable interim uses are those permitted 
in M-l and M-2 ("Light Industry" and "Heavy Industry") zoning districts. 

Unacceptable Non-Maritime Land Uses - The Draft Plan identifies the following unacceptable 
non-maritime long-term uses for piers or Port property within 100 feet of the shoreline: 1) 
private clubs, 2) residential, 3) sports faciliti e s with s e ating capacity gr e at e r than 22,000, 
|| non-accessory parking (e.g. public parking garages) except interim parking, 4) adult 
entertainment; 5) non-marine animal services, 6) mortuaries, 7) heliports (except for landings 
for emergency or medical services); 8) oil refineries, 9) hotels, 10) mini-storage warehousing. 



CHAPTER 4: AREA OBJECTIVES 

Chapter 4 describes Draft Plan objectives for five areas of the Port's waterfront, identifies 
acceptable uses by individual site location, and presents site-specific development standards to 
guide improvements to existing activities and new development of maritime, open space, and 
commercial or other uses. The key land use objectives for each of the five areas are 
summarized below. 

Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront - The Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront extends from the 
swimming club docks at the east end of Aquatic Park to the east side of Pier 39. The Draft Plan 
objectives for this area place priority on the restoration and expansion of the fishing industry . 

vi 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



including commercial and sport fishing, and fish handling and distribution operations. However, 
the Draft Plan also recognizes the need to attract revenue-generating new uses to help supp ort 
Port improveinents and subsidize the fishing industry which has been harmed by environmental 
degradation of the fisheries, more stringent industry standards, and other factors that have caused 
a decline in the fishing industry. To address those objectives, the Draft Plan emphasizes the 
' importance of the Port's fish-handling modernization improvements at Pier 45 and plans for a 
new Hyde Street Harbor, which may be complemented with a Fisheries Center and retail 
activities to enhance public access and Wharf activities. In addition, the Draft Plan allows 
adaptive, interim non-maritime uses in under-utilized facilities in Fish Alley, while also 
providing some short-term activities in this historic area. 

The Fisherman's Wharf objectives also encourage other maritime uses in the area, as well as 
maintenance of a diverse array of uses that reflect the status of the area as a major visitor 
attraction, while also providing activities that increase the appeal of the area to local residents. 

The uses allowed by the Draft Plan that will accomplish those objectives include a Fisheries 
Center, continuation of the Hyde Street Pier historic ship museum, visiting ceremonial ships, 
ferries and excursions, retail and maritime offices, and new public assembly and entertainment 
opportunities. Finally, there are other objectives that call for enhancing the public access and 
open space program, and providing efficiently planned parking and loading facilities in 
Fisherman's Wharf , which will improve the overall appearance, circulation and public enjoyment 
of this popular area. The Draft Plan includes development standards that would allow 
consideration of limited commercial uses on the Triangle site (SWL 301) and Pier 43-1/2 in 
order to provide incentives for introducing open space and public access amenities on these sites. 

Northeast Waterfront - The Northeast Waterfront extends from Pier 35 to Pier 7. The Draft 
Plan objectives for this area call for maximizing opportunities for retaining maritime operations . 
This objective protects existing cargo-related operations in Piers 15-17, 19-23, 27-29, but 
recognizes that the likely consolidation over time of cargo operations in the southern waterfront 
will give way to other maritime business opportunities such as excursion boats, historic ship and 
other berthing, and recreational boating and water use. The objective to activate the area with 
an array of daytime and nighttime uses that appeal to locals as well as visitors derives from the 
fact that there currently are few people-oriented activities in the area. The Draft Plan proposes 
numerous commercial and public use possibilities that would complement commercial and 
recreational maritime operations to enliven and increase public enjoyment in the area, in the 
event that current industrial maritime operations relocate to the southern waterfront. Other 
objectives guide new development, in order to protect and enhance the historic maritime 
character of the area, encourage new developments to highlight gateways to North Beach and 
Chinatown, and Fisherman's Wharf, and provide public access amenities that highlight newly 
created points of interest . 



vii 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



Ferry Building Waterfront - The Ferry Building Waterfront extends from the Pier 5 bulkhead 
building to the site of the future Rincon Point Park, at the south end of the Embarcadero 
promenade. The Draft Plan objectives for this area call for preservation and restoration of 
historic structures , particularly the Ferry Building and former U.S. Agriculture Building. 
Regarded as the centerpiece of the waterfront, the Ferry Building is a City landmark, and 
together with the Agriculture Building, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 
area objectives support continued and enhanced maritime operations to promote waterborne 
commute and recreational travel and enjoyment , and further encourage the restoration of the area 
as a major intermodal transit center for the downtown and City . To complement ferry, 
excursion boat, water taxi, historic ship berthing and recreational boat moorings, the mix of 
other commercial and public uses with these maritime activities should emphasize the civic 
importance of the area . New uses, such as a visitor center, public market, conference facilities, 
retail, together with ferry and other operations, should draw people into the Ferry Building and 
surroundings, thus establishing the area as a destination in its own right. 

In the course of undertaking such improvements, the Draft Plan objectives emphasize the 
importance of ensuring that the Ferry Building and environs are physically and visually 
integrated with their spectacular City and Bay settings , thus reestablishing the area as a gateway 
to the City. This includes extending the PortWalk through the area, which will provide more 
convenient, direct and aesthetically pleasing public access connections to open space and the 
Bay . In addition, new developments will have to provide efficiently planned parking and 
loading facilities to serve new activities in the area . The high costs of historic renovation of 
the Ferry Building and other architectural and historic structures in the area will require a mix 
of public and private resources, in order to achieve an appropriate quality and mix of uses . 
Given its historic significance and central downtown location, the Ferry Building Waterfront 
offers perhaps the best opportunity for a successful public and private partnership to provide new 
public amenities, jobs and other benefits to the Port, the City and the region. 

South Beach/China Basin Waterfront - The South Beach/China Basin Waterfront extends from 
Pier 22-1/2, just north of the Bay Bridge, to Mariposa Street, south of China Basin. The Draft 
Plan objectives for this area su pport the continuation and rationalization of existing maritime 
activities in the area, and improvement of those maritime uses that provide focal points for 
public enjoyment of the waterfront . Although many of the piers are deteriorated and no longer 
support the industrial maritime uses that once dominated the area, there still are a number of 
small maritime-related businesses scattered among different facilities that could be consolidated. 
These businesses, in addition to South Beach Harbor at Pier 40 and enhanced recreational 
boating and water use facilities south of China Basin will maintain a prominent maritime 
presence in the area. New development ventures promise additional opportunities for 
commercial and recreational maritime activities that, mixed with other publicly-oriented activities 
such as nighttime entertainment, family amusement activities and other commercial and 
residential uses on inland seawall lots, will clean up and make the South Beach waterfront more 
inviting and safe than current conditions. At the same time, it is recognized that the 



Vlll 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



introduction of new attractions to enhance public enjoyment of the waterfront must be balanced 
with the needs of adjacent South Beach residents . Given the number of vacant piers in the area, 
the objectives call for high standards in the design of new structures that give rise to a new 
architectural identity for the South Beach shoreline . In addition, new public access 
improvements created as part of new development will extend a PortWalk throughout the area 
and provide a unifying pedestrian connection between South Beach and Mission Bay. 

Southern Waterfront - The Southern Waterfront extends from Mariposa Street to India Basin. 
The Draft Plan objectives highlight the importance of the area as the heart of the Port's 
industrial maritime operations. Much of the area is undeveloped, and the Port's two container 
terminals at Piers 80 and 94/96 have operated well below capacity for many years. Although 
cargo shipping in the Bay Area is projected to increase fourfold by 2020, there are many 
variables that will determine where that business will take place. The Draft Plan objectives 
encourage efforts to maximize the utilization of the Port's existing cargo terminal facilities , 
including offering preferential use by selected ocean carriers. In addition, the objectives support 
interim use of property reserved for maritime expansion to maximize the productivity of Port 
assets . To increase economic return from these properties, the Draft Plan proposes allowing 
longer term interim uses (generally 1-10 years with exceptions for 20 or 30 years to amortize 
capital improvements), in light of the uncertainty regarding the timeframe for any expansion of 
cargo facilities in San Francisco. In addition, there is one are three undeveloped areas in the 
southern waterfront which is are unlikely to be useful needed for maritime purposes. The Draft 
Plan therefore includes an objective to consider non-maritime land use developments that would 
be beneficial to the Port and compatible with maritime activities in areas that are surplus to long- 
term maritime needs , which could generate revenues needed to support maritime operations and 
capital improvements. 

While industrial and maritime uses dominate the southern waterfront, other land use objectives 
for the Southern Waterfront call for the preservation and restoration of the historic Union Iron 
Works Buildings to revitalize an area that survives as an example of San Francisco's ship 
building and repair industry. Another objective encourages the reservation or improvement 
of areas for wetland habitats, and passive and active recreational use of public access and open 
spaces in the area (Warm Water Cove, Islais Creek, edge of Pier 94, Pier 98, India Basin). 

CHAPTERS: IMPLEMENTATION 

The Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a balanced and implementable land 
use plan for the use and development of the Port of San Francisco waterfront. Port property has 
been the subject of numerous past planning efforts. Waterfront land uses are regulated by 
Master Plan policies and legislative controls at local, regional and state levels. To the credit of 
those earlier efforts, there have been many positive advances in environmental quality, urban 
design standards, and transportation, public access and open space improvements However, 



ix 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



there are a number of increasingly restrictive legal interpretations of existing waterfront 
regulations and complex entitlement process requirements that have severely limited opportun- 
ities for economic revitalization of the waterfront, an issue that is central to the goal of an 
implementable land use plan for the Port. Chapter 5 therefore addresses implementation of the 
Plan on two levels: 

a) The Plan's goals, objectives and policies will be proposed for incorporation into public 
policy and waterfront regulations under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Planning 
Commission and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 
(BCDC), -that which govern waterfront land use through a legislative process. This will 
entail a reassessment of a number of existing policies, including those governing interim 
uses, replacement fill under BCDC, and non-conforming use policies. 

b) Improvements on the waterfront, consistent with the Plan, will be realized through a 
streamlined, site-specific development process, which includes soliciting early and 
ongoing community input, and up-front, integrated review by all applicable regulatory 
agencies. In addition, revisions are proposed to the Planning Commission's conditional 
use permit process. 

Financial Implications of the Waterfront Land Use Plan - The Waterfront Plan Advisory 
Board, recognizing the Port's financial needs and the economic benefits it brings to the City and 
the region, decided from the outset to develop a Plan that allows the Port to maintain a sound 
and diverse economic and fiscal structure, while continuing to provide for the needs of San 
Francisco's maritime industries, and for new public access, open space and other public benefit 
waterfront projects. Towards that end, a financial and economic impact analysis was conducted 
for a mix of possible land use scenarios under the Plan. Based on this analysis. Upon thoroughly 
e valuating th e r e sults, the Advisory Board concluded that although revenues generated from -the 
type and level of and u ses that could result from the uses proposed in the Plan would, in 
aggregate, be only of marginal feasibility from a financial standpoint, yet would yield 
significantly better financial results than more limited development opportunities under existing 
land use and regulatory conditions, the Port probably would still need additional revenues to 
sustain its operations. The Advisory Board therefore determined that additional strategies will 
be necessary to supplement the potential revenue benefits derived from the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan, including seeking outside funds, possibilities for new regional or shared organizational and 
budgeting arrangements such as a regional port system, further operational improvements, 
protections against transfer of Port funds to the City's General Fund, and possible Port retention 
of tax revenues paid by Port tenants. 

The Need for a Flexible Plan - In light of the Port's financial condition, and the rapid changes 
which occur in its maritime and non-maritime operations, an important conclusion was reached 
by the Advisory Board: the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan must be flexible. In permitting 
a variety of appropriate uses to be located on Port properties, the Port will be more readily able 
to respond to market conditions and development opportunities as it balances the needs of 



x 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Executive Summary 



existing tenancies, community concerns and management objectives, and thus more effectively 
manage its property than in the past. This will be carried out within a framework of streamlined 
and coordinated land use policies, controls, and processes shared by the Port, the San Francisco 
Planning Commission, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and 
the State Lands Commission. 



DO/fj/L:EXECSUl 



xi 



CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PORT 



The Port And Its Responsibilities 

Among its many good fortunes, San Francisco can count the fact that nearly its entire 
waterfront is publicly-owned. More than seven miles of prime Bay frontage, stretching 
. from Aquatic Park to India Basin, are held in trust for the public, under the management 
of the Port of San Francisco. Public ownership of Port property stems from the fact that 
most of this land was former Bay tidelands, filled by the State to provide docks, wharfs and 
backlands to facilitate commerce in San Francisco's natural harbor. These tidelands are 
impressed with a "public trust" on behalf of all the people of California. The Port, as 
trustee, is required to promote maritime commerce, navigation and fisheries, as well as to 
protect natural resources and develop recreational facilities for public use on these public 
lands. 

Responsibility for these lands was transferred from the State to the City in 1968 under the 
Burton Act. As a condition of the transfer, the State required the City to create a Port 
Commission with complete authority to use, operate, manage and regulate the Port, and to 
take all actions necessary to fulfill its public trust responsibilities consistent with the Burton 
Act. Under the Burton Act, revenues generated by the Port are to be used only for Port 
purposes. The Port receives no operating subsidies from the City. Thus, although the Port 
is structured much like other City departments, it is unique in that it must discharge its 
duties in furtherance of statewide interests, and does so without monies from the City's 
general fund. And, its duties and constituents are extremely varied. 

Unlike some ports that primarily manage shipping operations, the Port of San Francisco 
oversees a broad range of commercial, maritime and public activities that are integrated into 
the local, regional, national and international economy. In some areas, such as Fisherman's 
Wharf, traditional maritime activities, in this case commercial fishing, have become the 
background amenity for a thriving tourist economy. In other areas, the Port's finger piers 
are used for maritime support services such as ship repair, tug and tow operations, a 
Foreign Trade Zone and warehousing. At the Ferry Building, commuter and recreational 
ferry service is provided to Bay Area cities. And in the southern waterfront, traditional 
cargo shipping takes place at the Port's container terminals. The Port oversees this myriad 
of activities, balancing the often competing interests of its maritime and commercial tenants, 
its public trust responsibilities to the people of the State, and its responsibilities to the people 
of San Francisco, whose waterfront it oversees. As history can best attest, this balancing 
act has not been easy. 

The Expansion and Consolidation of the Industrial Waterfront 

From 1863 until 1968, the use and development of the Port of San Francisco was controlled 
by the State of California. A State Board of Harbor Commissioners ("State Board"). 

I - 1 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



exempt from local control and backed by the vast financial resources of the State, guided 
the Port from infancy to its height of maritime activity during World War II. Between 1912 
and 1930, many of the Port's piers were constructed while break-bulk shipping flourished 
and countless vessels were serviced at Port facilities. During this time, the waterfront 
became dominated by industry, maritime operations and railroad terminals. In post-war 
years, however, demand for the type of Port facilities offered in San Francisco began to 
decline. 

The completion of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges in the late 1930s had already led to a 
dramatic reduction in the once thriving ferry boat industry, rendering numerous finger piers 
on the northern waterfront obsolete. Technological innovations in the shipping industry, 
particularly the shift from break-bulk cargo to containerized cargo, further reduced demand 
for Port facilities. The rise of foreign competition in shipbuilding and ship repair dealt 
another blow to maritime activity at the Port. With the decline in these prime industries, 
maritime support activities also declined. 

The Evolution to Containerized Cargo 

The State Board perhaps grown complacent in its rol e as overseer of th e pr e mier West Coast 
shipping port, was slow to respond to the evolution of cargo shipping from break-bulk to 
containerization. While San Francisco looked on, the Port of Oakland obtained federal 
grants to help convert its mud flats to modern container terminals. By 1965, the Port of 
Oakland's total tonnage receipts equaled that of San Francisco. Last year, the Port of 
Oakland handled 14 million tons of cargo, 92% of the Bay Area market share. 

Under local control for the past 25 years, the Port has struggled to regain its preeminence 
as a shipping port. In 1969, the Port sold $20 million in bonds to finance the first LASH 
(lighter aboard ship) terminal on the West Coast at Pier 96, and for improvements to break- 
bulk piers. Unfortunately, LASH technology proved an ineffective competitor to 
containerization. Meanwhile, the investment in break-bulk piers kept some of those 
facilities intact, but yielded little return. As a result, the percentage of Port operating 
revenue devoted to debt service grew substantially, further hindering the Port's attempts to 
modernize. Although in 1971 the Port issued an additional $20 million in revenue bonds 
to build modern container terminals at Pier 94, San Francisco could never regain its 
preeminence over Oakland, and even now its facilities are not fully utilized. 

As discussed more completely in the Background Analysis for Water-Dependent Activities, 
Appendix A, over the past two years, shipping lines have dramatically reduced or ceased 
their shipping operations at the Port of San Francisco's two container terminals in the 
southern waterfront. Because container terminal operators depend heavily on economies of 
scale, these operators have had difficulty maintaining profitability and, therefore, the Port 



1-2 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



has been forced to consolidate its cargo shipping operations at Pier 96. The Port's other 
container terminal at Pier 80 will remain available for future maritime operations. With 
only a handful of shipping companies remaining at the Port, the Port's future in intermodal 
container shipping is uncertain, despite aggressive efforts to lure shipping lines back with 
highly attractive business offers. 

Unfortunately, there are a number of factors that will continue to place San Francisco in a 
competitive disadvantage with the Port of Oakland. First, although the Port of San 
Francisco is a mere 30 minutes from Oakland by truck, it is on average 2 days from 
Oakland by rail. In short, it is generally faster and, therefore, cheaper for carriers to pick 
up and deliver cargo in Oakland than in San Francisco. Second, shipping companies have 
expressed a strong desire to locate where two or more railroads are available because 
competition inevitably leads to lower prices for rail service. San Francisco is served by 
only one railroad. Third, the Bay area as a whole faces a competitive disadvantage with 
other west coast ports where demographic and geographic advantages allow faster 
intermodal connections to important local and midwest markets. Public investments in the 
Ports of Los Angeles and Seattle have resulted in further challenges to the market share of 
Bay Area ports. 

Despite these disadvantages, the final chapter of San Francisco's cargo shipping operations 
has yet to be written. Recent cargo forecasts predict over a four-fold increase in 
containerized cargo heading to and from the Bay Area between 1990 and 2020. San 
Francisco's goal is to capture as much of this growth as possible. However, although San 
Francisco has enough property "reserved" in the southern waterfront to double its cargo 
operations, the federal government's recent gift transfer of over 400 acres of the Oakland 
Navy Supply Center to the Port of Oakland for expansion of cargo operations makes San 
Francisco's property far less valuable for maritime expansion today. Previous regional 
forecasts predicted that as Oakland facilities filled to capacity, other ports would have the 
opportunity to capture expected "overflows" in cargo volume that could not be 
accommodated in Oakland. San Francisco will now have to wait longer for its facilities to 
be in greater demand. The closure of Bay Area military bases could have further negative 
consequences for San Francisco, if even more waterfront property becomes available for 
cargo operations. 

Clearly, these changing conditions require a new strategy for the Port's future cargo 
operations. Eager to maintain its historic role in maritime trade, the Port is looking for new 
ways to market its cargo facilities (See Chapter 4, Southern Waterfront). For example, the 
Port is well positioned to take advantage of a developing trend among large cargo carriers 
to own or control their own marine terminal, rather than sharing a terminal with other 
carriers. San Francisco is the only Bay Area port with the capacity in the next five years 
to offer long-term preferential assignments of its container facilities. In addition, other 
technological advances could lead to more efficient use of terminal space, allowing smaller 

I - 3 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



ports like San Francisco to attract high volume carriers. Alternatively, San Francisco could 
target smaller shipping lines that do not rely heavily on intermodal ship-to-rail cargo 
transport. 

The Future of Ship Repair 

Along with the Port's cargo industry, the Port's ship repair industry also has faced adverse 
industry trends outside of the Port's control. In the 1960s, ship repair businesses employed 
some 20,000 workers at over fifteen San Francisco ship building companies along the 
waterfront. In the 1980's, the rise of foreign competition and subsidies and the coterminous 
decline in U.S. subsidies of American ship building operations caused a significant decline 
in the number of ships serviced in the United States. More recently military contracts, one 
of the few remaining markets for the ship repair industry, have significantly decreased due 
to military budget cuts and base closures. Today, the City's two remaining full-service ship 
repair companies employ only 450 full time and 1,000 seasonal workers. While the Port 
is active in the City's efforts to revitalize this industry, it is apparent that this industry will 
not in the foreseeable future command the workforce or the land area that it did in the 
1960's. 

Waterfront Land Use in Transition 

Technological innovations and market driven trends in maritime commerce and industry 
have significantly affected the use of Port land and facilities, and the location of Port 
activities. With the advent of containerization as the primary means of transporting cargo, 
and the decline in the breadth of the ship repair industry, the Port's outdated break-bulk 
cargo, ship building and repair, and maritime support facilities have slowly been 
transformed to other uses. In keeping with City-wide trends, industrial maritime activities 
diminished over time in the northern waterfront and now are concentrated in the southern 
waterfront. 

Today, the Port's cargo facilities are primarily in the southern waterfront, where they rely 
heavily on truck access to and from Illinois and Third Streets, Cargo Way, 1-280 and U.S. 
101. Access to the interstate highway system is vital to the Port's competitive position in 
cargo shipping. The Port also is dependent on freight rail access which now is provided 
only in the southern waterfront. 

Consolidation of the Port's cargo operations has been further reinforced by recent changes 
in regulations affecting the Port's ability to dredge around its facilities. Although the Port 
is a naturally deep harbor, dredging is required to maintain channel and berth depths for 
deep draft ships. Because of rapidly decreasing capacity at existing Bay disposal sites, and 
growing concerns over potential environmental impacts of dredging, the entire Bay Area 



I - 4 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



faces severe dredging limitations. In response, dredging costs for the have soared, rising, 
for example, from 6% to 85% of total revenues in one year of newsprint terminal 
operations at Piers 27-29. The Port of San Francisco has been forced to reduce the amount 
of its annual dredging, in part by relocating cargo shipping tenants and closing shipping 
terminals. Meanwhile, in the northern waterfront, dredging cost w e nt from 6% to 8 5% of 
total r e venues for that use in one year. The serious financial impacts of dredging will lead 
te. Further consolidation of the Port's cargo operations m at the container terminals in the 
southern waterfront, where there is deeper water and excess terminal capacity, will help to 
reduce the Port's dredging requirements. 

With the departure of traditional industrial shipping operations, non- industrial maritime, 
commercial, residential and open space activities have proliferated on the northern 
waterfront, partly in response to City-wide needs for these uses. While non-industrial 
maritime activities have proven to be popular with residents and visitors alike (see Appendix 
A), the transition to other commercial and residential uses has not been without controversy, 
beginning long before the Port was transferred to local control. 

The State's early plans for redevelopment of the northern waterfront were, in hindsight, 
clearly out of step with local views of appropriate waterfront uses. First, the State Harbor 
Commission rejected surface level transportation improvements to The Embarcadero, due 
to concern over traffic interference with now defunct break-bulk shipping piers. The 
elevated Embarcadero Freeway was constructed instead. Second, a plan generated by the 
State's World Trade Center Authority and endorsed by the Governor called for construction 
of a 7-story building between Pier 1 and the Ferry Building, with a 30-story tower planned 
to replace the Ferry Building. Third, State Harbor Commissioner Cyril Magnin's 1959 plan 
for an "Embarcadero City" envisioned converting the Port's property north of the Ferry 
Building to non-maritime uses in high-rise structures on massive amounts of new fill. 

The transition from state to local control of the waterfront did not curtail ambitious efforts 
to develop the Port. In 1968, in order to gain control of the Port, the City assumed 
responsibility for $55 million in outstanding State general obligation bonds and agreed to 
invest $100 million for harbor improvements over the next 25 years. Extensive new 
commercial development was expected to generate revenue to support that level of 
investment. To this end, the Port proposed development of a 50-story U.S. Steel Office 
Building and cruise terminal on fill between the Ferry Building and the Bay Bridge. In 
response to public outrage, the City Planning Commission adopted the Northern Waterfront 
Plan, imposing a 40-foot height limit on most Port property north of the Ferry Building. 
While the City was still engaged in debate over height limits to the south, the State Attorney 
General's Office dealt the fatal blow to the U.S. Steel proposal. 

The Attorney General's office issued an opinion interpreting the then recently enacted 
McAteer-Petris Act (1969), which created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop 



I - 5 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



ment Commission (BCDC) to control excessive filling of San Francisco Bay. In a published 
opinion in October 1970, the State ruled that BCDC did not have authority to approve bay 
fill for non- water-oriented uses (e.g. office) even if an equal amount of existing fill was 
removed. As a result, the Port's plans for the U.S. Steel Building and an even-more 
ambitious project, Ferry Port Plaza at Piers 1, 3 and 5, never left the drawing board. 

The State responded to local concerns over the Port's major development proposals, and the 
Port's inability to achieve that level of development under the State's new BCDC legislation, 
by reducing the Port's investment obligations from $100 million to $25 million. This 
solution did not address the fact that, by this time, a great infusion of capital was needed 
to fully modernize the Port. 

This pattern of misinformed development expectations being squashed by regulatory 
revelations has been repeated several times in the Port's history. For example, a 
controversial proposal in the mid-1980s for residential condominiums on Pier 45 was ruled 
an invalid public trust use. Also, although BCDC had approved non-maritime office use 
on Piers 1 and 3 in its Special Area Plan, a 1986 informal Attorney General's Opinion ruled 
that substantial structural reinforcement of a pier (work necessary for any significant new 
development of a pier and, increasingly, for ongoing maintenance of existing facilities) was 
considered new bay fill and, therefore, the new use must be water-oriented, precluding the 
office development. In 1988, a proposal for an office and health club development on 
Seawall Lot (SWL) 321 failed, in part because the State Lands Commission ruled private 
health clubs impermissible under the public trust, and set stringent standards to ensure that 
office developments were primarily for maritime-related uses. Most recently, a proposal 
for a Sailing Center with a hotel on Piers 24 and 26, although permitted by BCDC and State 
Lands regulations, was defeated by San Francisco voters' passage of Proposition H in 1990. 

Clearly, the Port has not been effective in its efforts to provide new activities along the 
waterfront and generate revenues to subsidize maritime and other public improvements 
desired by the citizens of San Francisco. This Plan is intended to alter the course of this 
history of waterfront improvement efforts. 

Financial Impacts of Land Use Trends 

Fifteen years ago, then Assembly Speaker Leo T. McCarthy, in a letter to the Members of 
the Assembly Local Government Committee, stated that the "terms of the Port's transfer 
from State to City ownership were inequitable and financially unsound." Assemblyman 
McCarthy pointed out that, "At the time of the transfer. . ., neither party conducted an 
economic analysis of the condition of the Port and the effect of the transfer. " 



I - 6 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



Many conditions were identified in 1978 as factors in the Port's financial decline. Most 
notably, the property the Port received was in great disrepair. Twenty-three of the piers 
transferred were virtually unusable for maritime purposes because of their poor physical 
condition. The estimated cost of removing the unusable piers was between $10 and $20 
million dollars (1978 dollars). Those piers that were structurally sound had only marginal 
value because the cargo shipping industry was turning towards containerization, rendering 
finger piers obsolete. Also, the proceeds of the State bonds for which the Port had to 
assume debt service had already been spent for facilities which, in view of apparent changes 
in maritime technology, should not have been built at all. And as noted above, a prior State 
decision not to pursue federal grants exacerbated San Francisco's competitive disadvantage 
in comparison to Oakland, where major reinvestment in port facilities was underway. 

In an attempt to mitigate this inequity, Assemblyman McCarthy sponsored legislation that 
would have required the State to reassume financial responsibility for most of the 
outstanding general obligation bonds that the Port had been burdened with under the transfer 
legislation. The bill failed, and the problems identified in his letter were never addressed. 

The Port's Unique Financial Framework 

This precarious financial inheritance has been difficult for the Port to overcome, in part 
because of the unique financial and budgetary framework within which the Port operates. 
Under the Burton Act, revenues generated by the Port are held in a special fund to be used 
only for Port purposes. The Port does not receive subsidies from the City, and reimburses 
the City for any services provided by general fund departments. Rather, the Port's ability 
to fund Port operations, maintain Port property and provide public access and open space 
improvements depends almost solely on its ability to generate revenues from properties 
under its stewardship. 

While many California ports have a similar self-sufficient arrangement with their respective 
municipalities, other American ports receive subsidies for capital programs or have outright 
taxing powers. For example, the Port of Seattle, which competes directly with San 
Francisco, is subsidized by general tax revenues. Some California ports also have found 
subsidies for their maritime op e rations by linking of port and airport operations. The 
availability of such financial assistance to competing ports puts the Port of San Francisco, 
with its aging infrastructure, in an unfavorable competitive position. 

Declining Revenues from Cargo Shipping Operations 

Over the past five years, the Port's income from its cargo operations significantly 
decreased, r e fl e cting due to the departure of major shipping customers. Cargo revenues 
include cargo charges and facility lease revenues. Cargo revenue was only $9.6 million 



I - 7 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



in 1992/93, or 29.3% of the Port's total revenue. Ov e r last and next year Additional 
shipping line losses during the latter half of fiscal year 1993/94 will amount to further 
revenue reductions of approximately $4 millon In future annual revenues. And In the fiscal 
year 1994/95 budget, cargo revenues are expected to be $5.0 million, approximately 15.6% 
of the Port's operating revenues. 

While revenues from commercial leases and other non-cargo maritime activities, were more 
stable, they did have not increased significantly over the past five years. Revenue from the 
Port's non-cargo operations, including wharfage and dockage from passenger ships, ship 
repair, fishing, and visiting ships, and rental payments from commercial tenants, ship repair 
firms, fishing companies, parking stalls, and parking meters, was $23 million or 70.7% of 
the Port's total revenue in 1992/93. 

The Port's total operating revenues increased only 2.1% annually from fiscal year 1988/89 
to fiscal year 1992/93. In response to its flat revenue history, the Port has been reducing 
controllable expenses in its operating budget (e.g. personnel, facilities maintenance, 
equipment, etc.) in order to hold the expenditure budget flat and achieve a balanced budget. 
For example, the Port eliminated a net of 36 staff positions effective July 1, 1994 to re- 
balance its operating budget now that additional shipping lines have announc e d th e ir 
int e ntion to l e av e because several shipping lines left the Port. Evergreen, The Port's largest 
remaining shipping line has announced that it will leave the Port in 1995, requiring further 
cuts in the Port's operating budget. These budget constraints are making it extremely 
difficult for the Port to add new programs, improve current services, or maintain its 
property, much less provide publicly-desired waterfront improvements. For example, in the 
past lew years, the Port's operating revenue surplus has been minimal. Yet the current 
estimates for San Francisco's snare of regional dredging studies is $1.5 million and San 
Francisco's share of the actual dredging costs is $5-6 million. If revenues do not improve, 
services and maintenance will decline further, and public projects cannot occur. 

In addition to its ongoing operational costs, the Port also faces a $127 million Capital Plan 
in excess of $100 million, burdened with many mandated, non-revenue producing projects; 
an approximately $25 million backlog of deferred maintenance which continues to 
accumulate at approximately $2.5 million per year; expected increases in dredging costs; 
and increased demand for the Port to support many declining maritime industries through 
increased marketing and subsidies. 

In addition, the Port's environmental risk exposure is a particular financial concern of the 
Port today. While the Port's risk is typical of other sites with a mix of industrial businesses 
dominated by transportation and warehousing activities, it also is a cause for concern 
because of the exceedingly high cost of toxic remediation. There are Port areas where 
contaminated fill, underground tank leaks, and asbestos are presumed to exist, requiring 
the Port to develop specific programs to address hazardous materials. New requirements 



I - 8 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



for cleanup of designated toxic hot spots are currently being developed by the State Water 
Resources Control Board. Future costs for this program are uncertain, but could be 
substantial in some parts of the waterfront. In the Capital Plan, the Port already has 
committed $23 million in capital funds for the highest priority maritime and environmental 
projects, leaving a balance of over $100 million in unfunded capital projects. 

It is clear from a review of the historical numbers and the backlog of capital and required 
maintenance projects that the Port has not been able to produce enough revenue to sustain 
its current operations. The Port currently is developing a new financial strategy to 
aggressively control expenditures while seeking ways to enhance revenues from new and 
existing lines of business. A realistic Waterfront Land Use Plan that helps balance revenue 
producing and non-revenue producing projects, and results in strong positive greater cash 
flow to the Port, will help the Port enter the next century as an economically viable public 
agency, capable of providing San Franciscans and Californians with the waterfront they 
deserve. 

The Opportunity For a New Land Use Strategy 

In the 25 years since the Port was transferred to local control, a number of plans for the San 
Francisco waterfront were adopted by both the City and BCDC. Many of the changes 
called for in past plans have been accomplished or are well underway, including the 
demolition of The Embarcadero Freeway; construction of the Waterfront Transportation 
Project improvements on The Embarcadero; removal of dilapidated piers and replacement 
with the Promenade between Mission and Folsom Streets; construction of the Pier 7 
recreation and fishing pier; renovation of the historic Roundhouse building on the northern 
waterfront; and implementation of the Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Plan. 
Notably absent from this list, however, are commercial development projects implementing 
plan policies for the economic reuse of Port finger piers. Thus, the Port has not had access 
to the economic resources anticipated to sustain its operations when the waterfront was 
transferred to local control. 

Twelve years have passed since the last comprehensive planning effort was completed for 
the San Francisco waterfront. Although many elements of the existing plans, policies, 
regulations and financial objectives are worthy of retention, a new approach is required to 
halt the continuing deterioration of Port property and to revive the debilitated state of Port 
finances. Often, the problems with implementing plan policies for economic reuse of Port 
piers have not arisen from the plans themselves. Indeed, the objectives of the plans (to 
provide environmental protection and ensure public benefits from invaluable waterfront 
resources) are well-founded and widely respected. Rather, the plans did not anticipate 
subsequent and increasingly restrictive interpretations of the regulations affecting Port land 
use under the public trust doctrine and BCDC enabling legislation. (See also Chapter 5) 



I - 9 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter J: Introduction To The Port 



The waterfront planning process has been designed to forge a consensus among the citizens 
of San Francisco and government agencies with jurisdiction over Port property for the 
beneficial use of the Port's property, that achieves an integrated mix of financially balanced 
maritime and non-maritime activities on Port property and improved waterfront access and 
open space. 

The time is right for such a crucial mission. Some may lament the consolidation of cargo 
operations in the southern waterfront, preferring to spread the remnants of the rough and 
tumble waterfront of years gone by throughout the entire waterfront. Most, recognizing the 
inherent conflict between the new neighborhoods that have emerged adjacent to the shore 
and the industrial warehousing, trucking and rail operations upon which modern cargo 
operations depend, would prefer a new combination of maritime and non-maritime 
operations on the northern waterfront, to blend with the vibrant new neighborhoods of South 
Beach, Rincon Hill and Golden Gateway, among others. 

This transition would provide new opportunities for accommodating and expanding the 
Port's other maritime industries, such as fishing, cruises, ferries and excursions, recreational 
boating and water activities, and historic and ceremonial berthing, along the northern 
waterfront. While most of these industries cannot be expected to generate on their own 
significant revenues to cover costs for new facilities (see Appendix A), their future 
contributions to San Francisco's maritime character can nonetheless be assured if they are 
balanced with other revenue-generating uses on the waterfront. For example, although the 
cruise industry is not projected to grow significantly absent changes in federal law, it is 
unthinkable to imagine a San Francisco waterfront without a cruise ship terminal. By most 
accounts, the condition of the current terminal is a civic embarrassment. If terminal 
improvements were integrated with a mix of uses that could share the facility, and thus the 
cost, San Franciscans would benefit by new access to waterfront attractions, and take 
comfort in knowing that visitors are welcomed in a facility worthy of San Francisco's 
waterfront. 

The success of this mixed use approach to revitalizing outdated waterfronts has been proven 
throughout the nation. One can travel to Vancouver's Granville Island, Portland's River 
Place and Seattle's Pike Place Market and experience a full range of maritime and 
commercial activities that reunite residents with their respective waterfronts. 

The possibilities for a successful revitalization of the San Francisco waterfront are greatly 
enhanced by a massive infusion of capital for public improvements from state and federal 
transportation funds. In San Francisco, after more than 10 years of careful planning, a 
series of new Waterfront Transportation Projects (WTPs) are now underway to pave the way 
for the revitalization of the Port. Originally, the WTPs were conceived as a single 
transportation project, primarily on Port property, that assumed the continued operation of 
The Embarcadero Freeway. In 1989, the Lorna Prieta earthquake severely damaged the 



I - 10 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



Freeway, and its subsequent demolition provided an exciting new opportunity to redesign 
the mid-Embarcadero segment of the WTPs between Folsom and Broadway and reconnect 
the City with its waterfront. While this redesign effort is underway, the City is proceeding 
with construction of the north and south segments of the projects. 

When completed, the WTPs will provide an integrated system of major roadway, pedestrian, 
landscaping, historic signage and public art improvements from the intersection of The 
Embarcadero and North Point Street on the north to the intersection of Sixth and King 
Streets on the south. Additional improvements include: 1) the MUNI Metro Turnback 
Project, providing more efficient turnaround of MUNI Metro trains via an underground 
tunnel that will surface on The Embarcadero near Folsom Street; 2) a MUNI Metro light 
rail service from The Embarcadero station to the Cal Train station and, eventually, to 
Mission Bay; and 3) a new MUNI historic street car line (the F-Line) running in The 
Embarcadero median from the Ferry Building to Fisherman's Wharf. 

These improvements will balance the transportation needs of the City's residents, visitors 
and workers with the needs of the Port's continuing maritime operations along The 
Embarcadero roadway. Equally important, the beautification of The Embarcadero will set 
the stage for a waterfront renaissance. The Port, together with the citizenry of San 
Francisco, are now confronted with the challenge of reshaping the edge of this great City. 
The visions embodied in the Waterfront Land Use Plan set forth on the following pages 
provide a place for most everything San Franciscans desire. With open minds, constructive 
criticism and cooperative spirit, San Franciscans will create a blueprint for action that will 
be a credit to this generation of San Franciscans for years to come. 

[The following information about the process will be incorporated in graphic/timeline form 
in the Waterfront Plan] 

Proposition H 

In November 1990, the San Francisco voters narrowly adopted Proposition H which 
required preparation of a comprehensive waterfront land use plan with maximum feasible 
public input, and also provided minimum requirements for its contents, such as a ban on 
hotel development on the piers or within 100 feet of the shoreline, unless subsequently 
approved by the voters. Proposition H also placed a moratorium on non-maritime 
development on trie Port's piers and within 100 feet of the shoreline, pending completion 
of the plan. (The full text of Proposition H is provided in Appendix B.) 

To ensure a comprehensive planning process covering the wide diversity of Port interests, 
the Port Commission extended the scope of the planning area to include all Port properties 
and created the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board to prepare and recommend a plan for Port 



I - 11 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 1: Introduction To The Port 



Commission adoption. The 27 Advisory Board members were appointed based on 
recommendations from the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor, as well as through a 
general solicitation of interested citizens, maritime industry representatives, Port tenants, 
labor unions, neighborhood organizations, architects, urban planners and other professionals. 
The Board has been holding held public meetings twice monthly since from mid- 1991 to 
mid-1994. 

Water-dependent activities were the focus of Phase I of the planning process. Following 
an 18 month review process, the Advisory Board determined the land use needs of water- 
dependent activities that are or could be operating at the Port. Water-dependent activities - 
those that require access to water in order to function - include cargo shipping, ship repair, 
passenger cruises, excursion boats and ferries, recreational boating and water use, historic 
ships, fishing, and temporary and ceremonial berthing. The land use needs of these 
industries were determined following intensive, industry-by-industry evaluations and public 
workshops. At the conclusion of Phase I in the fall of 1992, the Advisory Board tentatively 
reserved approximately 1Q% two-thirds of the Port's properties to meet the future needs of 
water-dependent activities, pending further review of those needs in the final phase of the 
planning process. 

In Phase II of the planning process, the Advisory Board evaluated other activities that are 
not necessarily water-dependent, such as public access and open space, mixed use 
commercial development, museums, residences, and warehousing. The Advisory Board 
held public workshops and meetings over the course of a year to receive input from citizens, 
real estate and design professionals, and experts in transportation, historic preservation and 
other relevant disciplines on the feasibility and desirability of these new waterfront 
activities. Focus meetings also were held on sections of the waterfront to study the 
interrelationship of potential new waterfront activities with activities on neighboring 
properties. At the conclusion of this lengthy review in the spring of 1994, possible land 
uses were identified for the sites that had not been previously reserved for water-dependent 
activities in Phase I. These possible uses were outlined in Options for Change, a report 
published for public review and the subject of public meetings from the fall of 1993 through 
the spring of 1994. 

This Draft Waterfront Land Use Man integrates the preliminary findings made in Phase 
I and Phase II of the planning process into a proposed, comprehensive land use plan to 
guide the Port Commission in the use of its property. The Advisory Board will review, 
revise and adopt this Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan, prior to recommending it to the Port 
Commission. The Port Commission will then oversee preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Report (EIR) on the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act. After the EIR is certified, the Port Commission will adopt the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan, with revisions as necessary. Concurrently, the City Planning 
Commission will hold a public hearing to ensure consistency between the Waterfront Land 
Use Plan and the City's Master Plan, as required by Proposition H. ldraftplnjch-i 

I - 12 



CHAPTER 2: GOALS OF THE WATERFRONT PLAN 



Reuniting The City With Its Waterfront 

The waterfront of a great city is truly a special place. A place to enjoy. A place to 
cherish. A place simply to be. The Port of San Francisco is no exception. Yet, like so 
" many waterfronts across the nation, it is a place in transition, with too many outmoded 
maritime facilities and too few new activities to draw people to the shore. While future 
generations may look back on this time of transition as a brief moment in San Francisco's 
colorful history, for those who live here now it more likely feels that too much of the 
waterfront has been cordoned off from public use for too long. The challenge of the 
waterfront land use planning process has been to help guide the evolution of the waterfront 
to a place that reflects modern traditions and sensibilities, but where history also plays an 
essential role. 

Through the over three year public planning process to determine future activities on Port 
lands, this balance has been struck. During meeting after meeting of the Waterfront Plan 
Advisory Board, the diverse citizens of San Francisco stood and asked for the waterfront 
of their dreams. Some called for the past days of industry and maritime commerce. Others 
called for new recreation and vital business activities along the waterfront, for places to eat 
and drink, run errands, work, rent a bike, launch a dingy, or to take refuge on a windy and 
foggy summer day. Still others called for quiet and restful places to enjoy the nature and 
the beauty of the Bay. Most called for all these places. 

Throughout the planning process these and other themes came up again and again, reflecting 
the overarching goal of San Franciscans to reunite the City with its waterfront. We have 
memorialized these themes here as the Goals for the Waterfront Plan that together will 
achieve this goal and they are reflected throughout the land use policies that follow. The 
Goals guided the land use choices presented in this Plan but they are also recorded here so 
that as the Plan is implemented they will continue to serve as a guide for achieving the types 
and balance of waterfront activities that will reunite the City with its waterfront. In San 
Francisco, this goal will be accomplished through a working waterfront and revitalized 
Port with a diversity of activities, accessible to all San Franciscans and visitors, that is 
mindful of its past and future, and where the design of new development is worthy of the 
Port's spectacular setting. 

A Working Waterfront 

Port lands should continue to be reserved to meet the current and future needs of cargo 
shipping, fishing, cruises, ship repair, ferries and excursion boats, recreational boating 
and other water-dependent activities. 



II - 1 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 2: Plan Goals 



The Port has a rich maritime heritage, highlighted by the days of the freewheeling Barbary 
Coast, embarkation to the Pacific during World War II, and the colorful characters 
memorialized by Mark Twain and Jack London. In keeping with this maritime history, and 
with the Port's public trust responsibilities, Port land should continue to be reserved to meet 
the current and expansion needs of water-dependent activities - those that require a 
waterfront location in order to serve their basic function. In addition, in recognition of the 
fact that The Embarcadero is a public trust asset that the Port must use to promote public 
trust activities including maritime commerce, transportation access necessary for these 
waterside operations to thrive should be maintained and enhanced. To meet the needs of 
water-dependent activities, the Waterfront Land Use Plan provides for: 

• Continued cargo shipping and ship repair operations along the southern 
waterfront. 

• Modernized fishing operations in historic Fisherman's Wharf. 

• Expanded opportunities for recreational boating and water activities 
throughout the waterfront. 

• Expanded ferry boat and new water taxi operations at the Ferry Building, 
with satellite facilities to serve other waterfront areas. 

• Excursion boat services from downtown, Fisherman's Wharf and other key 
visitor locations. 

• Cruise ship operations in the northern waterfront. 

• Historic ship berthing at Fisherman's Wharf and other highly visible 
locations. 

• Ceremonial & temporary berthing throughout the waterfront. 

• Development of a strategy to ftirther maintain and enhance maritime activities 
at the Port as the Plan is implemented. 

A Revitalized Port Providing New Jobs for San Franciscans 

New investment should stimulate the revitalization of the waterfront, providing new jobs, 
revenues, public amenities and other benefits to the Port, the City and the State and 
should seek to reflect the City's ethnic and gender diversity in Port business opportunities. 



II - 2 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 2: Plan Goals 



As discussed above, many of the Port's maritime activities require costly capital 
improvements, far in excess of what these industries can alone afford to bear. If these 
needs and other publicly desired open space and public access improvements are to be met. 
there must be a new and better balance between subsidized and revenue-generating activities 
at the Port. Fortunately, the Port stands at the crossroads of change. Dramatic 
transportation improvements underway along The Embarcadero set the stage for a waterfront 
renaissance. The Plan identifies opportunities for new investments, often in the form of 
mixed-use developments, that will provide capital for reinvestment in maritime facilities and 
piers, public access and park improvements, and cultural and public gathering places. 
Private capital will be attracted to the waterfront once San Franciscans achieve consensus 
on the Plan, providing the certainty that is a precondition to reinvestment and revitalization. 

These revitalized areas will enhance and complement the exciting new neighborhoods that 
have emerged adjacent to the Port over the last decade. The waterfront renaissance will 
restore the financial strength of the Port of San Francisco, stimulate the growth of 
waterfront jobs and tax revenues to the City, and provide space for new and expanding 
businesses. New uses that yield good paying jobs for San Franciscans should be 
encouraged. 

The Port is committed to using affirmative action in revitalizing the waterfront. In 
developing current and future waterfront activities, the Port will be guided by the City's 
policies on affirmative action and take affirmative steps to e nsur e that to encourage ethnic 
and gender diversity will be reflected in Port contracting, leasing, employment, and the 
provision of programs and services. 

A Diversity Of Activities And People 

Port lands should host a diverse and exciting array of maritime, commercial, 
entertainment, civic, open space, recreation and other waterfront activities for all San 
Franciscans and visitors to enjoy. 

San Francisco Bay has always drawn San Franciscans and visitors to its shore to work, play 
and relax amidst the beauty and excitement of the waterfront. The Port's Vh miles of 
waterfront property stretch nearly the entire length of the City's boundary on the Bay. 
offering ample opportunity to accommodate a greater diversity of maritime and non- 
maritime waterfront activities than occurs today. 

As the revitalization of the Port occurs, the Port's water-dependent activities should be 
interspersed with other compatible land uses to enhance public enjoyment of the Bay. and 
exposure to the working waterfront. New mixed-use activity hubs should emerge along the 



II - 3 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 2: Plan Goals 



waterfront, weaving together and reflecting San Francisco's diverse lifestyles and ethnic 
cultures, and the interests of mariners, employees and residents, the elderly and the young, 
people with special needs, recreation enthusiasts and people seeking solitude. 

The Port, in its implementation of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, should encourage and 
foster a balance of uses and activities on the waterfront. This An array of new uses open 
space, recreation, maritime and commercial activities, all of which should be accommodated 
at the Port, will reunite the City with its waterfront by providing new gathering places, full 
of life, that are safe both day and night. Open spac e , recreation and maritime activities 
should b e r e gard e d as having valu e e qual to comm e rcial d e v e lopm e nt. 

Access Along The Waterfront 

A network of parks, plazas, walkways, open spaces and integrated transportation 
improvements should improve access to, and enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of, 
the Bay environment. 

The reconstructed Embarcadero roadway, public transit improvements and pedestrian 
promenade will bring grand and historic changes to the waterfront, creating a bold and 
continuous seam of public transit and public access along the northern waterfront, and a 
highlight along the regional Bay Trail. 

New and existing parks, plazas and open spaces, as well as areas for nature, habitat and 
environmental restoration, should provide outdoor spaces where all the members of the 
public can enjoy either waterfront activities or the more tranquil aspects of the Bay in a 
quiet, unthreatening setting. Viewing areas and informational displays should provide visual 
access to waterfront activities where physical access must be limited. 

The Plan encourages access improvements that allow all people to experience the City's 
diverse social, natural, and cultural environment by: 

• Creating a "PortWalk" that integrates new open spaces, connected by 
continuous public access from Fisherman's Wharf through Mission Bay, with 
exciting new Pier activities. 

• Providing public amenities such as restrooms, drinking fountains, food and 
drinks, and bike and skate rentals, where appropriate. 

• Coordinating with and, where feasible, implementing the Regional Bay Trail. 



II - 4 



§ 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 2: Plan Goals 



• Designating protected wetlands in th e southern waterfront south of China 
Basin. 

• Providing for viewing areas and signage explaining existing waterfront 
activities, such as cargo shipping in the southern waterfront and fishing 
operations at Fisherman's Wharf. 

• Encouraging new recreational boat moorings and other waterborne 
transportation improvements in conjunction with new commercial and 
recreational uses. 

• Supporting transportation access for a full range of users, including 
continuous transit between the northern and southern waterfronts, and 
convenient and safe pedestrian crossings to the water's edge. 

• Protecting vital truck routes and freeway and freight rail access necessary to 
serve the Port's cargo industry. 

An Evolving Waterfront, Mindful Of Its Past And Future 

Improvements should respect and enhance the waterfront's historic character, while also 
creating new opportunities for San Franciscans to integrate Port activities into their daily- 
lives. 

The evolution of the waterfront, from its beginning to the present, reflects San Francisco's 
colorful history. The waterfront should continue to serve as a repository for memories of 
past events, while also providing a stage for new experiences. 

Recognizing that the waterfront will continue to evolve, a balance should be maintained 
between continued maritime activities, expanded public activities, protection of the 
waterfront's unique historic and architectural setting and resources, opportunities for nature 
and habitat protection and restoration, and financial responsibility. Mixed use Conversion 
and development of the existing waterfront infrastructure (e.g. the pier bulkhead esplanade 
along the northeast waterfront) to new mixed use developments will be aided by, and should 
recognize, the value of the City's rich working-maritime historic context, to the present, and 
should ensure that the sigmffcant historic architecture of the waterfront, identified in Urban 
Design Guidelines called for in this Plan, is preserved in the development process, wherever 
feasible. 



II - 5 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 2: Plan Goals 



The Plan seeks to preserve past and allow for future waterfront memories by providing for 
or encouraging: 

• Development of Urban Design Guidelines which will include identification 
of significant historic resources that should be preserved. 

• Restoration of the Ferry Building to its original grandeur, and creative reuse 
of other sigmrlcant historic waterfront structures identified in the Urban 
Design Guidelines to preserve the waterfront's historic fabric and context. 



• New life for the City's historic fishing industry at Fisherman's Wharf. 

• Continuation of the historic ship museum at the Hyde Street Pier, and 
additional historic ships interspersed along the waterfront. 

• Private investment to create new public gathering places and business 
opportunities along the waterfront. 

• Adaptive reuse of historic and architecturally significant structures such as 
the Union Iron Works buildings at Pier 70. 

• New and existing wetlands at China Basin per 1bz Mission Bay Plan and in 
the southern waterfront at Pier 98 and the northeast tip of Pier 94. 

• Interim uses to provide current activities on Port property reserved for long- 
term maritime expansion. 

Urban Design Worthy Of The Waterfront's Setting 

The design of new developments should be of exemplary quality and should highlight 
visual and physical access to and from the Bay, while respecting the waterfront's rich 
historic context and the character of neighboring development. 

San Francisco is world renowned for the beauty of its waterfront. Compelling views of the 
water, sky, bridges and distant cities are experienced from hillside homes, City workplaces 
and streets, as well as from the water's edge, and are framed by the Port's maritime 
structures and facilities. New waterside improvements should respect these "Bay windows" 
and also encourage new visual and physical connections between the City and the water, via 
water taxis, public boat and ferry docks and other activities that draw people to and through 
the Port. 



II - 6 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 2: Plan Goals 



New Port developments should reflect and enhance the richness of the waterfront's setting. 
The varied land uses, building scale, and historic and architectural resources in neighboring 
districts reflect the City's diversity and establish a context in which complementary yet 
imaginative design should be integrated in Port improvements. The Plan furthers these 
• objectives by calling for development of Urban Design Guidelines that include and expand 
upon the following: 

• Respecting existing building height and bulk limitations and encouraging 
building designs that step down to the shoreline. 

• Encouraging more physical connections between the land and the water 
throughout the l x h miles of shoreline. 

• Improving views of the working waterfront from all perspectives. 

• Protecting and framing near and distant views to and from the Bay. 
particularly along major City streets. 

• Identify significant historic resources that should be preserved. 



AC/fj/I idraftpln. 3\CHAPTER2 



II - 7 



CHAPTER 3: GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 



The Waterfront Land Use Plan Goals and Guiding Principl e s establish a framework for 
determining the acceptable uses for Port property. In general, the Guiding Principles Goals 
favor a wide variety of land uses that retain and expand historic maritime activities at the 
Port, provide revenue to support new maritime and public improvements, and significantly 
increase public access to the water. 

This chapter describes each of the categories of land uses that together will achieve the 
Guiding Principles Waterfront Land Use Plan Goals. Accompanying land use maps show 
where the uses exist today, and where they could be developed in the future. General Land 
Use Policies provided in this Chapter govern all land uses on Port property, whether 
existing or new, long-term or interim. For new maritime and non maritime development 
opportunities. Additional site-specific standards are provided in Chapter 4: Area Objectives 
and Site-Specific Development Standards. 

Maritime Uses 

Maritime Uses consist of all "water-dependent" uses and all their related support and 
ancillary services as and activities, including those summarized below. The Port properties 
that are in Existing Maritime or Transitional Maritime curr e nt use, or available for futur e 
use for Maritime Uses Expansion are shown on Map A. A furth e r More detailed 
descriptions of the acceptable operations associated with each maritime activity 4s are 
provided in Appendices A, Background Analysis for Water-Dependent Activities, and 
Appendix C, Glossary of Terms. 

• Cargo Shipping - Including shipping terminals and berths, cargo warehouses, 
equipment storage and repair facilities, administrative functions, and 
employee support services (e.g. training facilities, parking). 

• Ship Repair - Including drydock and berthing facilities, warehouses and 
workshop areas, administrative functions, and employee support services. 
including (e,g. training facilities and parking). 

• Fishing - Including commercial and sport fishing harbor and berthing areas 
and support services (e.g. fuel docks), fish handling, distribution and 
processing facilities, administrative and maintenance functions, and parking 



III - 1 



in 
Z 
< 
a. 

X 
w 

< 

tu 

P 
5 
< 

o 
z 

c/a 

>< 
w 

tL. 

o 

CL 

< 
> 

< 
on 



I 

I 

■s 



c/2 a 

< s 

Oi k 

w it 

< K 

ii 

< 
OS 
E- 

Q 
Z 
< 



•is 
3 



< 
a. 
< 
2 



C/2 
< 

< 
< 

o 
z 

p 

on 
X 



so 
< 

< 
Z 

o 

z 
< 

a. 

X 

UJ 

w 

5 
< 
2 



c/3 

< 

< 

P 
< 

-J 

< 

Z 

o 

So 
z 



W 

Z 
J 

z 
o 



Q 
E- 

o 

a. 







lip 




i 










s e s 

ill £ 

fii i 

= « " j: 

I E | i 

f I s i 

t « a »• 

3 ■ * S 

_ — a = 

SI'S S 

|1 t I 



= * = 



ill 

f s| 

ff] 
cj 



1 

o 
| 



III-2 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



• Recreational Boating and Water Use - Including facilities for swimmers, 
kayakers, windsurfers and other water sport enthusiasts as well as 
recreational boat e rs, boating facilities such as including marinas, and visiting 
boat docks, swimming and boat clubs, boat rental facilities, boat trailers and 
launching facilities, repair and dry storage, visitor parking, restrooms and 
other public facilities. 

• Ferry and Excursion Boats and Water Taxis - Including facilities for 
berthing and passenger services faciliti e s, storage, parking, administrative 
functions, lay-over berths and fueling stations. 

• Cruise - Including passenger terminal and berthing facilities, ship servicing 
area, storage and visitor parking. 

• Historic Ships - Including berthing areas, museum/exhibit space, storage and 
workshop space and visitor parking. 

• Maritime Support Services - Ancillary functions needed to support maritime 
activities including tug and tow operations, bar pilots, ship chandlers, 
associated parking and maintenance storage and warehouse facilities, Foreign 
Trade Zone, and Port maintenance. 

• Temporary and Ceremonial Berthing - Including temporary berthing of 
historic, military or other visiting vessels. 

• Maritime Office - Administrative functions for any maritime industry, (e.g. 
import/export businesses, legal and professional services), that s e rve or 
offices that provide services and supplies to maritime operations. 



In general, the Port's industrial cargo and ship repair operations are concentrated in the 
City's industrial district south of China Basin Channel from Pier 48 to Pier 96, although 
Piers 15-17, 19-23, and 27-29 in the northeast waterfront currently are still used for 
newsprint cargo shipping and cargo warehousing. Port property in the southern waterfront 
favors container shipping operations, due to the availability of large tracts of land and 
maritime support services, such as warehousing, transportation services, and freight rail 
access. This area also continues to be the most viable location for the ship repair industry . 
because there is adequate space to separate the industrial processes (and emissions associated 
with that work| r e quire buffer zones to minimize impacts on surrounding from residential 
development, neighborhoods 



III - 3 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



In contrast, the majority of existing commercial- and recreation-oriented maritime uses, such 
as ferries and excursions, cruises, historic ship, and recreational boating operations are 
located north of China Basin Channel. Two exceptions are the fishing industry, traditionally 
regarded as an industrial use, which continues to be centered in Fisherman's Wharf, and the 
public boat launch and recreational boating facilities located south of China Basin, adjacent 
to Mission Bay near Pier 52. Contrary to the ship repair and cargo industries, where access 
by the general public is restricted or prohibited, the commercial and recreation-oriented 
maritime uses rely on good access and visibility in order to thrive. These maritime 
operations therefore benefit from proximity to other people-attracting activities, such as 
commercial and residential uses. 

The Waterfront Land Use Plan also identifies "Transitional Maritime Sites-Areas" on Map 
A, with accompanying General Land Use Policies below. For a variety of reasons, the 
cargo-related facilities at Piers 15-17, 19-23, and 27-29 in the northeast waterfront are not 
likely to continue in cargo use over the long-term. In the northeast waterfront, the 
transition of inland upland properties from industrial to residential and commercial uses, 
coupled with the transformation of The Embarcadero to an urban boulevard, have already 
hampered cargo operations (particularly convenient truck access to the piers). In addition, 
dynamic shipping industry trends and restrictions on dredging favor consolidation and 
centralized cargo operations, which can best be accommodated in the Port's southern 
waterfront. 

In light of these key factors, which ultimately affect the profit margins for these operations, 
the future for industrial maritime activities in the northeast waterfront is limited. Although 
consolidation in the southern waterfront would yield maximum operational efficiency for the 
cargo industry, this shift would could require initial capital investment for which the Port 
currently does not have the financial resources. These financial considerations would 
therefore need to be resolved before determining whether a Transitional Maritime Ske Area 
is surplus to the needs of industrial maritime industries. 

Although the Waterfront Plan supports continued cargo-related use of these facilities for as 
long as such use is viable, these sites should be considered for mixed use development, if 
they become surplus to the needs of the cargo industry. The conversion of these facilities 
to mixed use developments will provide additional opportunities to expand commercial- and 
recreation-oriented maritime operations in a setting that will enhance those maritime 
businesses. Moreover, the development of new commercial activities will provide a source 
of revenue to help finance maritime operations that are not financially self-supporting, as 
well as new open spaces and public access. Development standards for these alternate land 
use possibilities are presented in the discussion of the Northeast Waterfront in Chapter 4. 



Ill - 4 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



General Land Use Policies for Maritime -Uses Areas 

The following General Land Use Policies apply to sit e s for Existing Maritime, Maritime 
Expansion, and Transitional Maritime Activities Areas, as noted. In addition, more detailed 
development standards are identified for specific sites in Chapter 4. 

The maritime policies discussed below and in more detail in Chapter 4, provide guidance 
to the Port in siting its various maritime operations. However to fully meet the Port's 
public trust responsibilities to promote navigation, fisheries and maritime commerce, the 
Port reserves the right to site maritime activities anywhere on Port property in response to 
ever-changing industry needs. 

General Policies for Existing Maritime Areas 

(1) Protect and, where feasible, enhance facilities for existing maritime uses by: 

a) Providing long-term leases and other incentives for maritime 
industries to invest in facility improvements and, where the economic 
condition of an industry does not permit such investment, seeking 
alternative sources of financing for needed improvements, including 
linkages to new non-maritime, revenue-generating development 
located on-site or off-site. 

b) Permitting interim uses that are not necessarily maritime-related, as 
a means of supporting reserving maritime industries suffering 
temporary e conomic decline properties not currently in demand 
These interim uses would be subject to General Policies provided 
below for "Interim Uses" and should not prevent eventual reuse of the 
property for maritime uses when needed. 

c) Making efforts to maintain buff e r zon e s around cargo and ship repa i r 
op e rations, in order to avoid land use conflicts or interference (e. g 
noise, lighting, emissions, truck traffic impacts) with sensitive 
adjacent — users, — particularly — residential — populations maritime 
operations. 

d) Protecting existing truck and rail access and routes where feasible. 

(2) Seek opportunities to increase public access to, and appreciation of, existing 
maritime activities by: 



III - 5 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



a) Incorporating public access to sites $F existing industrial maritime 
operations (ship repair, cargo, fishing) when feasible, in a manner 
that does not interfere or constrain the maritime operations. Such 
access may be limited to public tours, or public viewing areas and 
educational displays, and need not be provided on-site. 

b) Including new public access improvements, such as walkways and 
viewing areas, as part of any substantial facility upgrade for 
commercial- and recreation-oriented maritime operations (excursions, 
ferries, cruise, recreational boating), if financially feasible. 

c) Permit the development of accessory commercial services, such as 
retail convenience sales, and restaurant and food sales on a limited 
sea4e, to meet the needs of maritime nearby employees and 
businesses, including Port tenants, provided that such uses do not 
interfere with or preclude the primary maritime operations. 
Accessory commercial services also can make an area more inviting 
to the general public by providing places to observe and learn about 
maritime operations. 

(3) Accommodate seasonal overflow demand for fish-handling facilities and 
temporary and ceremonial berthing at any pier that can safely meet these 
needs. 



General Policies for Maritime Expansion Areas 

(4) Locate any new industrial cargo and ship repair activities on Maritime 
Expansion sites Areas south of China Basin, close to maritime support 
services, freight rail access and truck routes. 

(5) Protect truck routes and rail access necessary to support Maritime Expansion 
Areas in the southern waterfront. 

(6) Encourage the development of new commercial- and recreation-oriented 
maritime activities (e.g. water taxis, excursions, cruise, historic ships) on 
all Maritime Expansion piers north of China Basin by: 

a) Linking the development of the new maritime activities with 
complementary non-maritime public and commercial activities as part 
of a mixed use program that would also include open spaces and 
public access in order, to maintain a maritime character along the 
water's edge and to help finance the maritime-related capital 
improvements. 



Ill - 6 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



b) Providing Selecting locations for new maritime activities with high 
visibility locations from adjacent streets to enhance public views of 
the working waterfront. 

c) Whenever possible, taking advantage of shared visitor parking and 
other services and amenities at adjacent or nearby development. 

(7) Include public access improvements such as boardwalks, plazas, viewing 
areas, and educational exhibits in new maritime development, where feasible. 
The nature of these public access improvements will vary depending on 
whether they are commercial or industrial activities. 

(8) Permit recreational boating and water uses in a variety of locations at the 
Port, including sites south of China Basin, provided that the type of 
recreational activity is compatible with the industrial or commercial nature 
of the maritime uses in the area. 

(9) Accommodate seasonal overflow demand for fish-handling facilities and 
temporary and ceremonial berthing at any pier that can safely meet these 
needs. 

(10) Permit the development of accessory commercial services, such as retail 
convenience sales, and restaurant and food sales on a limited scale, to meet 
the needs of maritim e nearby employees and businesses, including Port 
tenants, provided that such uses do not interfere with or preclude the primary 
maritime operations. 

General Policies for Transitional Maritime Areas (Piers 15-17, 19-23, 27-29) 

(1 1) Maritime activities permissible on Existing Maritime or Maritime Expansion 
sites are permissible and encouraged on Transitional Maritime sites until such 
time the site is determined to be no longer required or suitable for maritime 
use exclusively. 

(12) Permit temporary and ceremonial berthing at any facility that can safely meet 
this need. 

(13) Establish an implementation Conduct a review process that i nclud es 
consid e ration of th e following crit e ria befor e making a d e t e rm i nat i on that 
considers the following criteria to determine if. on balance, a Transitional 
Maritime site is no longer viable exclusively for maritime activities: 



III - 7 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



a) Are there limitations regarding the site location, on-site structures and 
improvements, or other site characteristics that no longer enable the 
facility to be operated exclusively for maritime activities? 

b) Are there off-site conditions beyond the control of the Port 
Commission that have rendered the site unsuitable for exclusive use 
for maritime activities? 

c) Are alternative facilities available which enhance the viability of the 
maritime activities? 

d) Would continuation of maritime activities on the site require excessive 
Port resources, resulting in a significant financial hardship and/or 
operational inefficiency for the Port? 

e) Have all reasonable measures been taken to provide alternate facilities 
that meet the operational needs of both the maritime operator and the 
Port, including meeting financial requirements to make necessary 
capital improvements at new locations? 

Additional General Policies for Existing Maritime, Maritime Expansion, 
and Transitional Maritime Areas 

(14) In recognition of the Port's public trust responsibilities to promote 
navigation, fisheries and maritime commerce, permit substitution of one 
maritime activity for another, as needed to meet changing maritime industry 
trends. 

(15) Continue to give the Port broad discretion in maximizing opportunities for 
maritime activities, by simplifying permitting, design review and other 
regulatory requirements. 

( 1 6) Prohibit new private maritime-related clubs with exclusive memberships (i.e. 
members must be voted in). Allow other maritime-oriented clubs, that may 
charge membership fees, but encourage pay-as-you go use of facilities or 
other measures to allow occasional club use, to the maximum feasible extent. 



(17) Maximize efficient use of new and existing parking facilities in a manner that 
does not hamper maritime business operations, whenever feasible. 



Ill - 8 





Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



Open Spaces and Public Access 

The Waterfront Land Use Plan identifies Existing and New Open Spaces and Public Access 
areas generally on Map B and more specifically in the Acceptable Land Use Tables in 
Chapter 4. 

Historically, there were relatively few open space and public access improvements provided 
on Port property, because of the maritime and industrial uses that formerly dominated the 
waterfront. However, changing land use patterns over the last 20 years have created 
opportunities to transform significant stretches of the Port waterfront to open spaces and 
public access. 

The Pier 7 fishing and open space pier, completed in 1990, is the most recent and perhaps 
most successful open space amenity constructed at the Port. This elegant pier adjacent to 
downtown extends 900 feet into the Bay, and has received a number of awards for design 
excellence. South of the Ferry Building, The Embarcadero Promenade extends along the 
water's edge from the Agriculture Building to the Bay Bridge, providing a popular lunch 
retreat for downtown workers. Other public access improvements at Pier 39 in Fisherman's 
Wharf provide views of the marina and playful sea lions, and extensive landscaped gardens 
to delight the many visitors attracted to the area. In addition, volunteer citizen efforts 
currently underway along the south bank of Islais Creek will result in new landscaping and 
public access improvements that are compatible with ongoing maritime and industrial 
operations in the area. 

Unfortunately, not all the open spaces at the Port have been improved to their full potential, 
and many do not provide maximum public benefit. The Ferry Plaza on the bayside of the 
Ferry Building, and Warm Water Cove and Pier 98 in the southern waterfront are examples 
of these under-utilized resources. Other Port sites have been proposed or approved as major 
open space resources, but have not yet been developed. These include Rincon Pftfk Point 
and South Beach Parks included in the Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Plan, and 
the 1 1 acre wetlands and other waterfront open spaces approved as part of the Mission Bay 
Plan. 

Together, the open space and public access areas shown on Map B, if when fully developed, 
will provide substantial and varied opportunities for public enjoyment on a greater number 
of Port waterside sites than identified in and will m e et most of the City's Master Plan 
policies for open space and public access policies for the northeastern and ulong the eastern 
shorelines. In addition, the landscaping and public access improvements developed as pan 
of the Waterfront Transportation Projects will introduce a dramatic open space element that 
establishes continuity and a uniform design standard for other new waterfront open space 
and public access improvements. An integrated series of open spaces and public access 



III - 9 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



amenities will also connect the San Francisco segments of the regional Bay Trail which, 
when completed, will extend around the perimeter of San Francisco Bay. 

However, the main constraint to realizing this future is a lack of Port or City financial 
resources to fund these ambitious public access and open space improvements. While the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects are paid for primarily with federal and state 
transportation funds, many of the other open space improvements have yet to secure 
financing. The Port actively pursues state and federal grant funds to pay for public access 
projects, such as the $500,000 grant secured for public access improvements at Pier 47 A 
in Fisherman's Wharf. The Port should make efforts to access Recreation and Park 
Department funds for open space acquisition, renovation and maintenance improvements. 
However, it is anticipated that there will be fewer public funding programs available in the 
future. As a result, the Port will need to rely on new revenue-generating developments to 
help create and maintain public access and open space improvements. 

General Land Use Policies for Open Spaces and Public Access 

The General Land Use Policies listed below apply to Existing and New Open Spaces and 
Public Access, as indicated. In addition, more detailed development standards for new op e n 
spaces and public access are identified for specific sites in Chapter 4. 

General Policies for Existing and New Open Spaces and Public Access 

(1) Ensure that the primary function a diversity of Open Spaces and Public 
Access is public r e cr e ation , which may be achieved in different ways 
depending on the location, including places that provide access to the water; 
quiet contemplative places for passive enjoyment; active places for civic 
gatherings and other urban events that draw large crowds; places for biking 
and foot race events; places that restore the environment and support wildlife 
habitats; places to learn about waterfront activities and the Bay environment; 
and places that appeal to children and seniors. 

(2) Provide public facilities (e.g. restrooms, public phones, drinking fountains, 
information kiosks) in Open Spaces and Public Access areas wherever 
desirable and feasible. 



(3) Wherever feasible, route pedestrian paths and park circulation in Open 
Spaces and Public Access to create a "PortWalk" that maximizes connections 
with the Bay, and with the pedestrian promenade along The Embarcadero 
(where applicable) and the regional Bay Trail, where applicable. 



Ill - 11 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



(4) Provide public access around the perimeter of piers, wherever safe and 
feasible. 

(5) Continue to pursue government and private funding and other financing 
strategies to cover capital and maintenance costs requirements and improve 
the appearance of new and existing open space and public access 
improvements areas. 

General Policies for New Open Spaces and Public Access 

(6) Develop urban design guidelines for the waterfront to facilitate integration of 
new open space and public access areas with the design and function of other 
waterfront activities. 

(7) Encourage and support volunteer citizen efforts to create public access 
improvements by assisting with grant and funding acquisition, and the permit 
review process. 

(8) Whenever possible, link the development of New Open Spaces and Public 
Access to the development of new commercial activities that would help 
activate the public areas as well as provide sources of development and 
maintenance financing. 

(9) Where space permits, allow accessory commercial activities (e.g. food and 
beverage stands or carts, bike or skate rentals) in limited amounts if there are 
no adjacent establishments on Port property, to provide services to open 
space visitors. 

(10) Minimiz e shadows on open spac e s ond minimize Protect open spaces from 
shadow and wind impacts from adjacent development, wherever feasible. 

Residential Uses 

Existing residential development on Port property is limit e d to currently is located on 
Seawall Lots 331, 332 and 333 in the South Beach area. Those sites are developed with 
below-market housing for residents of Delancey Street, and low and moderate income 
households in the Steamboat Point Apartments. Under limited conditions, new Residential 
Uses may be developed on seawall lots, as shown as in Mixed Use Oppcvrttuury Areas 
shown on Map C (following page HM5) and on other sites indicated in the Acceptable Land 



III - 12 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



Use tables in Chapter 4). Pursuant to the Burton Act, sites developed with housing must 
be declared surplus to maritime needs. 

Adjacent to the Port, there are several established and new residential neighborhoods mixed 
with commercial businesses, particularly in the northeast waterfront and South Beach areas. 
Additional residential development on certain Port seawall lots could complement the 
emerging upland inland neighborhoods. At the same time, residential use adjacent to mixed 
use developments on piers would increase security of public access areas along the 
waterfront, by introducing day and night time activities. Successfully designed and 
developed, residential uses on Port property will play a key role in reuniting the City and 
the waterfront. 

General Land Use Policies for New Residential Uses 

The General Land Use Policies for Residential Uses apply to new residential developments. 
In addition, more detailed standards for Residential Uses are identified for specific sites in 
Chapter 4. 

(1) Permit new residential development on upland seawall lots on sit e s north of 
China Basin sites are specified in Chapter 4 if those sites are not required 
to support maritime activities on adjacent piers. 

(2) Permit accessory commercial uses, particularly on the ground floor, to 
provide activities and interest for pedestrians, as well as goods and services 
for residents. 



(3) Permit spac e s for acc e ssory community m ee ting social and common areas, 
if feasible » that could be available for community meetings to serve on-site 
or nearby residents. 

(4) Develop urban design guidelines for the waterfront that include and expand 
upon the following design objectives: 

a) For projects that front on The Embarcadero, include landscaping 01 
other design amenities that d e sign buildings that both protect the 
privacy of the residents and enhance the public access yet inc l ude 
landscaping and other treatments that reflect the public nature of the 
ped e strian and transportation improvements constructed as part of the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects, in ord e r to thereby creating a 
transition that links between the City te and the waterfront ond m \ \ ^\ 
use activities, on adjacent piers. 



Ill - 13 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



(b) Avoid massive buildings by incorporating terraced or other building 
designs where appropriate, in order to protect visual access to the 
waterfront. 

(5) Reserv e 10% Comply with applicable City policy regarding provision of 
affordable housing in of the residential units in new residential developments. 
for below mark e t rate housing units consistent with City policy. 

(6) Seek new residential developments on seawall lots s hould that yield fair 
market return and generate surplus revenue to fund public trust-related Port 
activities, consistent with provisions of the Burton Act. 

Commercial Uses 

Commercial Uses consist of the uses listed below, which are designated as land use options 
on one or more of the sites Mixed Use Opportunity or Existing Commercial Use Areas 
shown generally on Map C and, more specifically, on sites indicated in the Acceptable Land 
Use Tables in Chapter 4. The Commercial Uses are divided into two groups, which are 
described below: those permitted on piers and waterside sites, and those permitted on inland 
seawall lots. 

Commercial Uses on Piers 

• Artist - Includes designer and crafts studios and galleries 

• Assembly and Entertainment - Includes conference facilities, theaters 
(cinemas and live performances) night clubs and nighttime entertainment 
venues, amusement parks, exhibition halls, public markets, children's 
entertainment 

• Recreational Enterprise - Includes facilities offering recreational and athletic 
fitness services 

• Museums 

■ 

• Parking (accessory to permitted acceptable uses only) 

• Retail - Includes retail goods and services, and eating and drinking 
establishments, and public markets 



III - 14 




111-15 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



• Visitor Center 

• Warehousing/Storage (excludes non maritime, for rent public storage 
faciliti e s tnini-storage on piers or within 100 feet of the shoreline.) 

• Wholesale Trade/Promotion Center - Includes wholesale trade promotion for 
a type of product, for example, California products (e.g. gourmet foods, 
wine, seafood, or other agricultural products), with related exhibit and 
conference facilities and import/export services. 

• General office |in buildings that are listed in the National Register of Historic 
Places , and pierhead and bulkhead buildings) . 

Commercial Uses on Upland Seawall Lots Sites 

• Commercial Uses P e rmitt e d on Piers, as described above 

• Hotel 

• General Office (Pursuant to the Burton Act, seawall lots developed with 
General Office must be declared surplus to maritime needs.) 

• Parking (general parking facilities and accessory parking to acceptable uses) 



* Assembly and Entertainment (see above description for piers) 

* Retail (see above d e scription for piers) 

• WarehousinglStorage (includes mini-storage warehouses on seawall lots) 

There has been very little new commercial development on Port property within the last 20 
years. Many of the existing commercial uses in the northern waterfront were developed 
before 1980 as single-use establishments, including Alioto's, The Franciscan, and other 
seafood restaurants, the Blue Shield office building in Fisherman's Wharf, and the Francisco 
Bay Office Park, in the northeast waterfront. 

One exception is Pier 39, the visitor-oriented retail and entertainment complex in 
Fisherman's Wharf, which was developed in 1978 as a mixed use maritime complex. 
Although some critics consider the development too tourist-oriented, and not properly 
oriented towards the water, the development nevertheless successfully integrates marina and 
excursion boat activities, and public access features that have greatly improved the 
appearance of the area. 



Ill - 16 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General iMnd Use Policies 



As discussed more fully in the Introduction to Chapter 4, the Draft Waterfront Land Use 
Plan strongly encourages that, where feasible, new commercial development on piers be a 
part of mixed use developments, including maritime uses and open space and public access 
improvements, on piers, that can which bring day and night time activity to the waterfront. 

Any new properties that the Port may acquire or control may be considered for mixed use 
development. If Such developments, particularly where the mix of uses arc planned and 
executed in a coordinated fashion, for adjacent s eawall lots and piers, al s o provid e a 
this flexible, mixed use development approach offers excellent opportunities to reunite the 
City with waterside attractions and amenities. Furthermore, mixed use developments 
provide a steady stream of patrons for retail, restaurant and entertainment activities. 

Planning for new mixed use commercial developments also should maximize use of existing 
and new parking resources. New public transit service planned as part of the Waterfront 
Transportation Projects will greatly improve access to new developments on Port property, 
and should be promoted as the a primary mode of transportation. However, the desire to 
provide new assembly and entertainment and other publicly-oriented uses along the 
waterfront, particularly those attracting people during the evenings and weekends, will stttt 
generate a need for require additional parking. Wherever parking is provided, appropriate 
efforts restrictions on its use and operations should be instituted to e nsur e it i s the minimum 
amount necessary should be made to maximize the efficient use of new and existing parking. 

The development of major new commercial uses, particularly in mixed use developments 
on piers and waterside sites, will provide opportunities to establish a "PortWalk", extending 
public access walkways onto piers to guide pedestrians through different activities and 
connect to the Waterfront Transportation Project pedestrian improvements along The 
Embarcadero. A PortWalk would add another dimension to appreciating the waterfront, by 
providing a means for active enjoyment of the sights and sounds of waterfront activities. 

The Waterfront Plan promotes a variety of commercial activities, including revenue- 
generating and non-profit uses that, in a mixed use program that includes maritime and 
public access improvements, can foster long term public-oriented activities on Port property. 
The sites on which the various Commercial Uses could be developed arc shown on Map. 
(same map as for residential). 

The Waterfront Plan promotes low scale development along most of the waterfront, 
consistent with the existing 40 foot height limits that apply to all piers, except those in 
the Ferry Building area, where an 84 foot height limit applies. Most of the Port's upland 
seawall lots also have a 40 foot height limit, with 84 foot and 105 foot height limits for a 
few isolated parcels. All of the permitted commercial uses listed can be developed within 
these existing height limits. 



Ill - 17 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



General Land Use Policies For Commercial Uses 

The General Land Use Policies listed below apply to existing and future Commercial Uses 
on all Port property. In addition, more detailed development standards are identified for 
specific sites in Chapter 4. 

General Policies for Existing Commercial Uses 

(1) Seek to improve public access and make the shoreline more attractive when 
renegotiating leases or issuing permits for Existing Commercial Uses, 
especially in areas such as Fisherman's Wharf, where there are few 
alternative locations available for new open spaces and public access. 

(2) Ensure that the Port is receiving fair market rents for its facilities wherever 
possible, through th e us e of r e al e stat e brok e rs and by monitoring lease 
obligations, taking into Qccount the cost of any capital improvements or 
r e pairs for which th e Port is responsible. 

(3) Seek new commercial tenant s d e v e lopm e nts that generate sufficient revenue 
to finance maritime, open space and public access improvements included in 
the projects, and yield ground lease payments to the Port sufficient to meet 
other capital and operational costs. 

(4) For Port seawall lots that are developed with Existing Commercial Uses, 
located along The Embarcadero, between Powell and Vallejo Streets, provide 
opportunities for conversion to other uses, when desirable to increase the 
revenue-generating potential and/or complement uses developed on adjacent 
Port sites. Any new uses should be sensitive to the character and scale of 
development m adjacent non-Port areas. 

General Policies for New Commercial Uses 

(5) Seek new commercial developments on seawall lots, piers, or waterside 
properties that generate sufficient revenue to finance maritime, open space 
and public access improvements included in the projects, and yield ground 
lease payments fair market return to the Port sufficient to meet other capital 
and operational costs, wherever possible. 



(6) Encourage New Commercial Uses on piers or waterside properties, 
preferably as part of mixed use developments, which include maritime 



III - 18 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Ixind Use Policies 



activities and public access or open space amenities, primarily located in 
areas north of China Basin. 

(7) Permit the mix of uses to be distributed among adjacent piers and seawall 
lots that together complement neighboring developments and thus unite the 
waterfront with the rest of the City. 

(8) Respond to the needs and interests of a full the widest feasible range of user 
groups in new mixed use developments, including seniors, children, San 
Francisco's diverse cultural community, disabled persons and other groups 
with special needs. 

(9) Major developments on waterside properties should incorporate publ ic access 
improvements that maximize visual connections (and physical contact, to the 
extent possible) with the water, and highlight maritime features, included in 
the project. 

(10) Provide affirmative action, in order to maximize opportunities for minority 
and women-owned businesses and small businesses to lease space and 
participate in waterfront business enterprises. In addition, extend waterfront 
business opportunities to non profit operations and small busines s es. 

(11) Prohibit new private clubs with exclusive memberships (i.e. members must 
be voted in). Allow other clubs that may charge membership fees, ( e,g, 
YMCA) but encourage pay-as-you go use of facilities or other measures to 
allow occasional club use, to the maximum feasible extent. Prohibit 
exclusive memberships to activities on Port property by allowing pay as you 
go us e of facilitie s . 

(12) Create a PortWalk, made up of integrated public access walkways and 
interconnected plazas, provided in major new developments that connect with 
the Waterfront Transportation Projects pedestrian promenade along The 
Embarcadero that: 

a) Guides circulation in and among activities on piers, and along pier 
perimeters wherever possible; 

b) Maximizes views of the water; 

c) Includes signage describing maritime activities and historical points 
of interest along the way; 



III - 19 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



d) Provides adequate lighting and security to promote public use of this 
amenity during the day and night. 

(13) Incorporat e into the d e sign of Develop urban design guidelines for the 

waterfront, including historic preservation guidelines, which include and 
expand upon the following design objectives for mixed use developments: 

a) Coordinated building designs, particularly for projects that include 
more than one site, to achieve a cohesive, complementary blend of 
architectural styles among adjacent sites. 

b) Coordinated landscaping and public access improvements to 
complement and enhance the Waterfront Transportation Project 
improvements along The Embarcadero (as applicable). 

c) Terraced building designs or other design treatments that protect 
visual access to the Bay and avoid massive buildings. 



d) Views from the waterside looking toward the city. 



e) Building designs that minimize protect open spaces from shadows and 
increa s ed wind conditions on impacts from adjacent or nearby open 
spaces development, to the extent feasible. 

f) Sufficient building service (e.g. trash, storage) and loading space for 
delivery and service vehicles which does not detract from the 
building design. 



(14) Promote architectural excellence in the design of new commercial 
development in a manner that is sensitive and compatible with the existing 
building scale, and architectural and historic character of surrounding 
development. 

(15) As a general rule, maintain a low scale of development on piers to minimize 
impacts on views, consistent with existing waterfront height limits. 

(16) Promote use of public transit as a primary mode of transportation and 
minimize parking requirements for new developments maximize the efficient 
use of new and existing parking facilities, particularly for s4^ new 
development north of China Basin, by implementing any of the following, as 
applicable: 



III - 20 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



a) Establish shared parking arrangements among Port-operated parking 
facilities, as well as with non-Port parking operations in adjacent 
areas that are conveniently located to serve daytime, evening and 
weekend activities at the Port. 

b) Provide shuttle service between new development and parking 
facilities, where sufficient nearby parking is not available. 

c) Limit the amount of available long-term (all day) parking; 

d) Promote ride sharing and use of public transit through the sale of 
transit passes, provision of van pool/car pool parking spaces, and 
joint promotional campaigns with transit providers. 

e) Provide parking information and signage systems to identify nearby 
under-utilized parking locations. 

(17) If there is no alternative upland seawall location, permit limited accessory 
parking on piers that: 

a) Is enclosed or otherwise screened from view. 

b) Does not interfere with public access areas. 

c) Does not generate significant traffic congestion on The Embarcadero. 

Other Uses 

The Waterfront Plan also provides opportunities for activities other than Maritime, Open 
Spaces and Public Access, Commercial and Residential Uses, which are listed below and 
are defined in Appendix C, Glossary of Terms. Development opportunities for each of these 
us e s, e xcept Public Acad e mic Institutions, Power Plants and Sports Facilities are limited to 
one area. In lieu of General Land Use Policies provided in this Chapter, site-specific 
Development Standards for these uses are presented in Chapter 4. General Land Use 
Policies for Public Academic Institutions, Transportation Services, and Community Facilities 
are provided below, with further site-specific Development Standards presented in Chapter 
4. 

• Power Plants (including Co-Generation Facilities): Refer to Chapter 4, 
Objectives for the Southern Waterfront. 



Ill - 21 

i 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



• Transit Facilitioo . Refer to Chapter 4 , Objectives for the Ferry Building 

Waterfront. 

• Sports Facilities (s e ating 22,000 or f e w e r) : Refer to Chapter 4, Objectives 
for the South Beach/China Basin Waterfront. 

* Community Facilities (including Fire and Police stations): Refer to Chapter 

4 , Obj e ctiv e s for th e South Beach/China Basin Wat e rfront. 

General Policies for Pubtie Academic Institutions 

(1) Prior to development, prepare a campus plan that addresses the following: 

a) Provision of public access improvements. 

b) Transportation plan that actively promotes public transit use and 
includes a parking mitigation program, if applicable. 

(2) To the maximum feasible extent, provide short courses and workshops, for 
example on a pay-as-you-go basis, that provide varied educational 
opportunities to the general public. 

General Policies for Transportation Services 

(1) In major developments, encourage ticket sales for all local and regional 
modes and providers of transportation service in San Francisco. 

(2) Plan vehicle staging areas mat minimize congestion on nearby streets. 

(3) Provide attractively designed and inviting passenger waiting and service areas 
in order to encourage use of transportation facilities, whenever feasible. 

General Policies for Community Facilities 

(1) Allow public safety and other community services facilities on sites that are 
strategically located to provide service to the Port or the City. 

(2) Where rational and feasible, combine community services (e.g. community 
meeting rooms, post offices) with other uses which activate the waterfront. 



Ill - 22 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



(3) Maintain the authority of the Executive Director of the Port in directing the 
utilization of Port facilities for medical airlift and other emergency services. 

Interim Uses 

The Port's ongoing management responsibilities, in combination with the following facts, 
require the development of a clear policy to guide the interim use of Port property: 

• The Port's weak financial condition has precluded the Port from making 
investments in its deteriorating properties. 



• For the foreseeable future, lingering effects of the 1989-1994 recession in the 
Bay Area real estate market, in addition to the complexities of major new 
waterfront development projects, will continue to deter private investment 
that would result in long-term improvements or increased cash flow to the 
Port. 

• The Port will need to rely more heavily than ever on its ability to maximize 
the productivity of its existing facilities in order to generate the revenues 
necessary to fund its ongoing operations and legally mandated activities, and 
to build cash reserves for capital investment. 

• The revitalization of Port property can begin sooner if new businesses, 
programs and activities are initiated, even on an interim basis, to begin 
bringing more workers, residents and visitors to the waterfront. 

• If, after the Port Commission and other City agencies approve the Waterfront 
Land Use Plan, changes to BCDC regulations or State Legislation are 
required before proposed long-term uses could be developed, interim uses 
would insure the economic use of Port property pending these changes. 

Currently, there is no clear consistent regulation of interim uses on Port property. This is 
a concern particularly for non-maritime activities, which are subject to review by the City 
Planning Commission, BCDC and the State Lands Commission, in addition to the Port 
Commission. Because there is no clear regulatory distinction between short-term and long- 
term leases, prospective tenants that would like to rent existing space for a 10 year period, 
for example, are subject to most of the same time-consuming and expensive application, 
government review procedures, and exactions, as a new major development project that will 
have a 50 year life. Existing guidelines for interim uses also vary according to location. 
BCDC generally limits interim uses in the southern waterfront to five years or less as part 



III - 23 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



of a Bay Area wide plan the BCDC/MTC San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan to protect 
marine terminal expansion areas. Given the excess capacity at the Port's existing terminals, 
and the enormous supply of waterfront property that may be suitable for marine terminal 
expansion that will be available upon closure of military bases, BCDC will likely revise 
current Seaport Plan policies. 

The few existing regulations which address interim uses on the remainder of the Port's 
property primarily pertain to the problem of non-conforming uses, which are generally 
discouraged, without making allowances for uses which should be encouraged although 
only for limited terms. 

General Land Use Policies for Interim Uses 

The following General Land Use Policies apply to sites for Interim Uses in the three 
different categories of Port property described below. In addition, more detailed 
development standards are identified for specific sites in Chapter 4. 

General Policies for Areas North of China Basin Channel and Within BCDC's 
100 Foot Shoreline Band 



(1) Promote productive use of piers, and pierhead and bulkhead buildings on an 
interim basis, instead of allowing those facilities to stand vacant, where 
market trends or limited Port resources prevent rehabilitation and reuse 
consistent with long term objectives for the site, by: 

a) In general, allowing interim uses, for terms of up to five years, such 
as, for example, small business incubator industries, public academic 
institutions, community facilities, parking or warehousing, within or 
on existing structures, provided that only minor no major repairs to 
the facility or substructure are necessary to permit the use to occur 
and which do not significantly contradict the overall objectives of the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

b) In exceptional cases, Where longer amortization periods are needed, 
allowing renewal of leases for one additional five year period. 
providing for early termination of th e lease e xtension by the Port in 
th e e v e nt that n e w dev e lopment opportuniti e s consist e nt with the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan, or other circumstances, ore i dent i f i ed 

c) Longer term interim uses will only be considered in exceptional cases 



III - 24 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



and must be thoroughly and publicly reviewed pursuant to the 
Waterfront Plan Implementation Process outlined in Chapter 5. 

d) Encouraging BCDC to adopt policies regarding its requirement for 
maximum feasible public access that recognize that interim uses can 
not be expected to support the same level of public access 
improvements as longer term uses. 

e) Allowing interim us e s which ar e principal permitted uses in C-2 
Districts ("Community Business" a common district designation on 
adjacent non-Port property in this area which permits retail, 
restaurants, office and a range of other commercial activities) to be 
approved as principal permitted interim uses on Port property, 
through a streamlined entitlement process. 

(2) Provide affirmative action to maximize opportunities for minority and 
women-owned businesses to lease space and participate in waterfront business 
enterprises. 

(3) Protect the environment and ensure compatibility with adjacent uses when 
authorizing interim uses by: 

a) Reviewing the list of principal permitted uses in a C-2 District and 
prohibiting those which could present a particular threat to the 
environment if conducted on a pier. 

b) Reviewing the list of principal permitted uses in a C-2 District and 
placing additional limitations on those permitted as principal permitted 
uses, if that use is to be located within 100 feet of any residential 
district, and the use would involve activities which would generate 
excessive noise, dust or glare. 

c) Avoiding interim uses that significantly contradict the overall goals 
and objectives of the Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

General Policies for Seawall Lots North of China Basin Channel 

(4) Promote productive use of vacant seawall lots on an interim basis, in general, 
for up to five years, where market trends or limited Port resources prevent 
development consistent with long term objectives for the site, by: 

a) Permitting the use of seawall lots for open air parking lots, and 



III - 25 



m 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land L'se Policies 



b) Permitting other types of open air uses which would be permitted 
principal permitted uses in a C-2 District ("Community Business." 
which permits retail, restaurants, office and a range of other 
commercial activities), to be approved as interim uses, through a 
streamlined entitlement process. 

c) Allowing renewal of leases, for additional five year terms for interim 
uses if the use continues to be compatible with surrounding activities. 
with provisions allowing for early termination of the lease by the 
Port in the event new development opportunities consistent with the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan, or other new circumstances, are identified. 

d) Discourage construction of any facilities which would tend to deter 
redevelopment of seawall lots for longer-term uses, but permit 
temporary structures or structures that are easily removed such as 
carnival tents, roadside produce stands, diner, or converted rail cars 
(e.g. Victoria Station Restaurant) in order to promote uses and 
activities that would enliven the area. 

(5) If the use of a temporary structure is identified in the Waterfront Plan as an 
permitted acceptable long term use, authorize that use for a term of up to 
fifteen years notwithstanding that the use may not satisfy all guidelines 
appropriate to permanent structures on the site. 

(6) Interim uses for terms longer than 15 years will only be considered in 
exceptional cases and must be thoroughly and publicly reviewed pursuant to 
the Waterfront Plan Implementation Process oudined in Chapter 5. 

(7) Provide affirmative action to maximize opportunities for minority and 
women-owned businesses to lease space and participate in waterfront business 
enterprises. 

(8) Protect the environment and ensure compatibility with adjacent uses when 
authorizing interim uses by: 

a) Reviewing the list of principal permitted open-air uses in a C 2 
District and prohibiting those that would present a particular threat to 
the environment because of the potential for groundwater or soil 
contamination. 



Ill - 26 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



b) Reviewing the list of principal permitted uses in a C-2 District and placing 
additional limitations on those permitted as principal permitted 
uses if that use is to be located within 100 feet of any residential district, and 
the use would involve activities that would generate excessive noise, dust or 
glare. 

c) Avoiding interim uses that significantly contradict the overall goals 
and objectives of the Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

General Policies for Areas South of China Basin Channel Including Sites Within 
BCDC/MTC Bay Area Regional Seaport Plan Area 

(9) BCDC Seaport Plan policies s hould provid e fl e xibility to Permit interim uses 
generally for periods of one to ten years, with exceptions for twenty to 
thirty years as needed to make productive economic use of the property, by: 

a) Permitting interim uses on Existing Maritime sites that are not 
necessarily maritime-related, as a means of supporting maritime 
industries suffering temporary decline. 

b) Encouraging interim uses, such as general warehousing and 
distribution operations, that can use existing facilities, thereby 
preserving those facilities for ultimate re-use for maritime purposes. 

c) Encouraging interim uses that can use raw land with a minimal level 
of improvement to the property, such as bus or truck storage or other 
open air uses, screened from view where necessary, if adjacent to 
residential or commercial districts. 

d) Permitting construction of new facilities and a sufficiently long lease 
term to allow amortization of the improvements for long-term interim 
uses that are not necessarily maritime-related uses. Before allowing 
long-term interim uses, establish procedures for determining that sites 
can be encumbered without undermining the Port's future maritime 
business opportunities. 

(10) Amend the BCDC/MTC Seaport Plan to allow interim uses, as 
described in (9) above, for designated "Port priority " areas. 

(11) Maintain existing City zoning designation of M-l or M-2 ("Light Industry" 
and "Heavy Industry," respectively, which permits a full range of 



III - 27 

i 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General I And Use Policies 



commercial, industrial and manufacturing uses) in order to permit a broad 
range of productive uses. 

(12) Provide affirmative action to maximize opportunities for minority and 
women-owned businesses to lease space and participate in waterfront business 
enterprises. 

(13) Ensure compatibility of interim uses with current and anticipated future use 
of adjacent non-Port areas by: 

a) Limiting interim uses on Port property the waterfront between Pier 
52 and Pier 64 66 to shorter terms of one to ten years, unless the use 
would be compatible with residential and other uses planned for 
adjacent and nearby property identified in the Mission Bay Specific 
Plan approved in 1991 . 

b) Complying with all existing environmental regulations (e.g. 
restrictions on noise, emissions, and transportation congestion) in 
order to avoid significant public health, safety and other impacts of 
industrial activities. Discouraging industrial activitie s that would 
generate noise, dust glare or excessive truck traffic in areas [hat 
border existing residential or commercial uses. 

c) Avoiding interim uses that significantly contradict the overall goals 
and objectives of the Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

Unacceptable Non-Maritime Land Uses 

The Waterfront Plan Advisory Board voted to declare the uses listed below unacceptable 
non-maritime uses on piers or within 100 feet of the shoreline, which are to be added and 
to add them to the unacceptable land uses under Section 5 of the 1990 Proposition H 
Ordinance. All unacceptable uses voted on by the Advisory Board apply only to non 
maritime, non-water dependent uses. Proposition H directs the following criteria to be 
considered in determining unacceptable non-maritime uses: 

1) Does the land use need to be located on the waterfront in order to serve its 
basic function? 

2) Is the land use compatible with existing or planned maritime operations oi 
surrounding parcels if any? 



Ill - 28 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 3: General Land Use Policies 



3) Does the land use provide the maximum feasible public access? 

4) Does the land use improve the ecological balance of San Francisco Bay? 

5) Does the land use protect the waterfront's architectural heritage? 

6) Does the land use represent the best interests of the people of the City and 
County of San Francisco and/or State of California? 

Unacceptable Non-Maritime New Uses § 

non-maritime private clubs 

residential 



sports facilities with seating capacity greater than 22,000 

non-accessory parking** (i.e. general parking built sp e cifically for 
parking purposes only) which is not provided as a requirement for 
new development) 

adult entertainment 

non-marine animal services 

mortuaries 



heliports (except for landings for emergency or medical services), 
oil refineries 



mini-storage warehouses 
hotels*** 



* Proposition H does not prevent any unacceptable non-maritime land uses existing as of 
January 1 , 1990 from continuing in operation or expanding on its existing site in a 
manner consistent with all other applicable laws and regulations. 

1* Non-accessory parking is a permitted interim use, but not a permanent (long-term) use. 

!** Hotels already are designated as an unacceptable use in the adopted Proposition H 

Ordinance. DYO/pj/I:draftplnl.3\CH3PLN.DYO 



III - 29 



INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 4 



This Chapter provides further specificity regarding the Waterfront Plan objectives for the 
five areas that make up the Port of San Francisco Waterfront: Fisherman's Wharf, Northeast 
Waterfront, Ferry Building Waterfront, South Beach/China Basin, and Southern Waterfront. 
Whereas Chapter 3 provides General Land Use Policies that govern all land uses on Port 
property, Chapter 4 provides additional, more specific area objectives and development 
standards for specific sites. 

Hie Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan strongly encourages that, where feasible, new 
commercial development, should be a part of mixed use developments, including maritime, 
open space and public access activities, which bring day and night time activity to the 
waterfront. For this reason, many Port sites discussed in this chapter are organized into 
"Mixed Use Opportunity Areas," combinations of piers and seawall lots, where most major 
changes are expected to occur along the waterfront. Any new properties that the Port may 
acquire or control also may be considered for mixed use development, which will foster a 
diversity of long-term, public-oriented activities at the Port. 

Chapter 4 includes Development Standards which provide guidance on appropriate maritime, 
open space, public access and commercial development in the Mixed Use Opportunity 
Areas. In addition, this Chapter presents Development Standards for Other Existing 
Maritime, Transitional Maritime, and Maritime Expansion areas, and Other Existing or New 
Open Spaces and Public Access located in the waterfront area. The discussion for each area 
includes a table that contains a Summary of Acceptable Land Uses for Port properties 
located in the area . 



It is important to note that the combination and proportion of uses in specific development 
projects will vary. In most cases, major development on a given site would include a mix 
of uses such as maritime, open space, and retail and community entertainment, although the 
amount of space dedicated to the different uses would vary. For example, some projects 
are likely to include more of a maritime or open space component than others. Other 
projects may include only a single use on site. In this latter case, however, the goal is to 
have different types of uses on nearby sites so that a mix of uses can be achieved in the 
greater area. Thus, for example, a pier may contain maritime and open space activities, an 
adjacent seawall lot may contain residential uses, and another adjacent pier may contain 
public access and an entertainment venue. If planned and executed in a coordinated fashion, 
this flexible, mixed use development approach offers excellent opportunities to reunite the 
City with a diversity of waterside attractions and amenities. 

The development of major new commercial uses, particularly on piers and waterside sites 
in Mixed Use Opportunity Areas, will provide opportunities to establish a "Port Walk", 
extending public access walkways onto piers to guide pedestrians through different activities, 
and connecting with the Waterfront Transportation Project pedestrian improvements along 
The Embarcadero. A PortWalk would provide a new way to enjoy the sights and sounds 
of waterfront activities. i .^.^,,,-. 

L drmltpln 3/MtU<CM 



IV - 1 



THE FISHERMAN'S WHARF WATERFRONT 



The Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront extends from the swimming club docks at the east end 
of Aquatic Park to the east side of Pier 39. 

Objectives for the Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 

Restore and expand Fisherman 's Wharf as a working fishing port. 

The continued presence of a healthy fishing industry is essential to maintaining the colorful 
ambiance and the economic well-being of Fisherman's Wharf. Fishing industry operations 
currently take place at Fish Alley, Piers 47, 49 and 45 and the Inner and Outer Lagoons. 
In recent years, environmental conditions have greatly reduced the available fisheries 
resources, which in turn has reduced the economic health of the fishing industry. At the 
same time, more stringent sanitation and safety regulations for fish handling will mean have 
developed, requiring significant and costly infrastructure and utility eests improvements to 
adapt facilities to meet changing requirements. The Port is striving to bolster the fishing 
industry, and projects under construction and in the planning stages will provide an impetus 
for further economic revitalization and investment by fishing companies at the Wharf. 

In 1988, the Seafood Center project was proposed by the Port Commission to improve the 
commercial fishing industry at the Wharf. The Seafood Center included a new 88 berth 
marina along the east side of the Hyde Street Pier and renovation of fish handling facilities 
at Pier 45. Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which displaced 10 fish handling 
businesses that operated in Shed B on the westside of the Pier, the Port began an $11.6 
million earthquake repair project at Pier 45, now in its final construction stage. The Port 
also is seeking funds for the Harbor, which will be constructed following environmental and 
regulatory approvals, if funds are obtained. 

Upon completion of earthquake repairs at Pier 45 in 1994/95, 108,000 square feet of 
modern fish off-loading, fish handling, and distribution space will be available. The Port 
intends to return fishing industry activities that were temporarily relocated to Piers 28 and 
33 after the earthquake, back to Pier 45. 

Efforts should be made to complete all the proposed Seafood Center Project improvements 
as soon as possible. When complete, these improvements will address most but not all of 
the difficulties the industry faces in the congested Wharf surroundings. For example, the 
industry has an unmet need for storage space. Although it is desirable to locate this type 
of storage within the near the waterfront area, Bay frontage is not required as long as 
equipment can be transported from storage to boat by truck or forklift. As space becomes 
available on Port and non-Port property in the northern waterfront, efforts should be made 
to provide additional storage areas and services for the industry. 



IV - 2 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



Attract revenue-generating new uses to help support and subsidize fishing industry and 
public activities. 

Fisherman's Wharf businesses currently provide significant revenues to the Port. 
Historically, however, there has been very little reinvestment in Wharf infrastructure. The 
primary challenge in Fisherman's Wharf is how to finance additional improvements needed 
to ensure the continued presence and improved health of the fishing industry. In this 
regard, the Port recently received a grant to study the feasibility of locating a Fisheries 
Center en in sheds A or C on Pier 45 to serve the fishing industry and the public. Center 
uses may under study include offices and research facilities, fish handling and marketing 
activities, a test kitchen and retail area for the sale of fish and related products, a 
visitor/interpretive center to educate the public about the fishing industry and the 
environment on which it depends, and conference facilities. Other compatible visitor- 
serving uses may be located in Sheds A or C to serve and attract the public, help finance 
the Fisheries Center and §ijr provide much needed revenue for Wharf-area and Port 
improvements. 

In addition to Pier 45, a significant amount of fish handling occurs at Fish Alley, the 
historic center of Fisherman's Wharf. Like Pier 45, however , these buildings require 
substantial modernization to meet current operational requirements. Although Port tenants 
at Fish Alley have long-term leases (most through 2036), theoretically providing them with 
a greater financial incentive to make leasehold improvements, such improvements have 
rarely been made because of the constricted physical layout of Fish Alley, limited vehicle 
access and parking, poor structural condition of the buildings, and poor economic health of 
the industry. 

Given the depressed state of the fishing industry, Fish Alley buildings may be in less 
demand for fish handling and related businesses once modern fish handling facilities are 
completed on Pier 45 in 1994-1995. Nevertheless, there remains a strong interest in 
preserving the character and charm of Fish Alley. It is therefore appropriate to allow 
adaptive new use! of current fish processing facilities until there is sufficient fishing industry 
demand for these facilities, during down cycles in the industry, with the ultimate goal of 
returning the facilities to fish handling use once the industry i s h e althy ogain. Interim uses 
would ensure that this historic area remains active and inviting at all times. However, any 
adaptive reuses should not encourage heavy traffic, and should not involve extensive 
remodeling because major investments for new uses tend to encourage permanency. 

Provide space for the existing and expansion needs of other maritime activities at the 
Wharf. 



IV - 3 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: 



The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



In addition to the fishing industry, Port property at Fisherman's Wharf is used for many 
other water-dependent activities. Recreational boating occurs at the Pier 39 marinas, and 
swimming and recreational activities are managed by the City's Recreation and Parks 
Department at Aquatic Park. The South End Rowing Club dock and the northern end of 
the Dolphin Club dock at Aquatic Park are on Port property. Ferry and excursion 
operations are based at Pier 39, Pier AVh and 43 Vi. Historic ship berthing occurs at the 
Hyde Street Pier, home of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, which has 
the largest concentration of historic ships in the nation, and at Pier 45 where the USS 
Pampanito is berthed. Ceremonial berthing occurs on the east side of Pier 45. 

Efforts should be made to provide these and other maritime businesses with new and 
expansion space so that their operations can continue to be viable at the Wharf. For 
example more berthing areas for ferries and excursions, and possible sites for water taxi 
docking need to be provided. 

Continue to integrate public, commercial, and maritime activities to preserve and enhance 
the diversity of uses at Fisherman 's Wharf. 

In the 1950s, Fisherman's Wharf was primarily an industrial area comprised of commercial 
fishing, manufacturing, warehousing and maritime uses, surrounded by small-scale 
residential uses. Visitor-serving facilities primarily consisted of restaurants adjacent to the 
Inner Lagoon fishing harbor. Over the years, this pattern has changed dramatically. Except 
for fishing industry facilities, industrial activities have virtually disappeared. Today, 
Fisherman's Wharf is comprised of an eclectic mix of fishing industry and other maritime 
and visitor-serving uses. The area now is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the 
United States, offering entertainment, restaurants, art galleries, museums, historic ships, 
parks, beaches and swimming areas, shops, hotels, offices and housing. 

Clearly, the fishing industry should remain a top priority at the Wharf. Indeed, the reason 
that the Wharf became a visitor attraction in the first place is that the public enjoyed 
observing fishing industry activities. But it is clear that visitor-serving facilities and services 
also are key to the continued success of the Wharf and need periodic updating and 
improvement. Any conflicts between fishing industry and visitor-serving activities should 
be minimized, so that new uses do not pose a barrier to the long-term enhancement of the 
fishing industry. A more visible fishing industry will improve the character and charm of 
Fisherman's Wharf. 

Encourage activities that will facilitate the use of the area by local residents and diminish 
the Wharf's image as a "tourist-only " attraction. 



IV - 4 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



The Fisherman's Wharf area is bordered by offices, housing, open space, neighborhood 
commercial and maritime uses. Yet, because the area is viewed by San Franciscans as a 
tourist area, many local residents believe that it has little to offer them. New Wharf 
activities such as arts, educational, historical and recreational facilities, and places of public 
assembly (such as festival halls, meeting halls or conference centers) should be encouraged 
to increase the appeal of Fisherman's Wharf to local residents. Festival-type assembly and 
entertainment uses and events such as the annual Festa Italiana should be encouraged 
because they draw thousands of residents to the area and cause only temporary minor 
disruption to the fish handling activities at the Wharf. Also, the Fisheries Center, if feasible, 
would provide enhanced public access and educational exhibits related to the fishing 
industry. Additional office uses, particularly above ground level, would provide activities 
at the Wharf oriented to local residents, and increase off-season patronage of Wharf shops 
and restaurants. These types of new uses should be encouraged in order to attract more San 
Franciscans to the heart of Fisherman's Wharf. 

Rationalize and enhance the public access and open space program at Fisherman 's Wharf. 

Pier 39, a major mixed-use development, provides most of the improved public access and 
open space at the Wharf, including dedicated public access around the Pier 39 perimeter, 
public access and fishing at Pier 41 atop the west marina breakwater, and the 4.6 acre 
Waterfront Park extending from Pier 41 to Pier 35 between The Embarcadero and the 
water's edge. Additional public access and open space improvements planned in conjunction 
with a new aquarium at Pier 39, include viewing plazas with exhibits focusing on the Bay 
environment, "Story of the Bay" plaques ringing the 2nd floor of the Pier and a 
comprehensive sign program emphasizing public access to the Bay at Piers 39, 41 and 43. 
In addition, 18,000 square feet of new access will be created at Pier 43, by the historic 
railroad arch where ferries used to dock and unload rail cars. 

Other public access areas at the Wharf include access through the Inner and Outer Lagoons, 
along the east side of Pier 45, and along Pier 43^. In general, however, these areas are 
hard to find and not clearly connected, making it difficult for pedestrians to flow through 
the area and enjoy the Bay. These problems are most evident at Pier 43 x h and the adjacent 
Triangle Site located in the heart of Fisherman's Wharf. 

Both Pier 43 Vi and the Triangle currently are used for surface parking and visitor-serv ing 
retail uses. During recent planning efforts at the Wharf, the possibility of creating a grand 
open space which would be the civic focus of the Wharf was studied. This would requ ire- 
removing surface parking and replacing it in an underground garage. Because funds for the 
garage and open space improvements are not currently available, more modest pedestrian 
and open space improvements, leading to and including the Triangle, Piers 41, AVh and 45 
were proposed and the first phase of these improvements are under construction Further 



IV - 5 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



consideration should be given to other ways to reconfigure at least some of the parking that 
is necessary for Wharf businesses, thereby freeing up more space for pedestrian and open 
space improvements, provided that the impact on existing parking that is necessary for 
ongoing tenant operations is addressed. Alternatively, more opportunities for valet parking 
should be explored here. In addition, the door should be left open to negotiations with 
existing tenants, if they are amenable, about the feasibility of allowing a small amount of 
an appropriate amount of additional revenue generating space for their use, in exchange for 
public access, open space or other significant public improvements. 

Wherever feasible, public access and open space areas should be expanded and linked to 
existing open spaces via a "PortWalk" in the Wharf to allow the public to enjoy the 
beautiful waterfront setting and fully experience the "working waterfront". As an example, 
the Port is renovating Pier 47 A, providing berthing and pedestrian improvements so the 
public can better view fish handling and off-loading operations. The Wharf also is a prime 
area for guided walks or interpretive signage to teach the public about different types of 
fishing boats and fish caught and about the Wharfs colorful history. The design of new 
development should help realize the PortWalk by improving pedestrian circulation and 
clarifying pedestrian connections to the Bay, to the ferries and between Wharf attractions, 
including Aquatic Park. 

Provide efficiently planned parking and loading facilities to serve Wharf activities. 

The lack of both long and short-term parking is one of the most frequent complaints of 
members of the fishing industry. At the same time, existing restaurants and visitor-oriented 
businesses and swim clubs also depend on parking for their patrons. From mid-morning 
through evening, all these drivers suffer intense competition for parking spaces. Affordable 
parking for commercial and sport fishermen heading out to sea is especially scarce, and 
public transit is not readily available during the early morning hours when the industry is 
the busiest. In addition, parking is needed in close proximity to fishing boats for off-loading 
gear. Long-term fishing industry parking spaces are proposed to be provided in Shed A as 
part of the Pier 45 improvements. The Hyde Street Harbor project will provide short-term 
loading and unloading spaces adjacent to new berths. However, there is concern that the 
amount of parking may be insufficient to accommodate other Wharf business and visitor 
needs, particularly if there is additional development in the area. Also, although improved 
fish handling facilities at the Wharf will permit storage of a greater volume of fish products, 
the need for semi-truck access to both receive and deliver cargo will persist. An area also 
is needed for the informal fish trading that currently occurs along Jefferson Street, causing 
sanitation and congestion problems for Port tenants and visitors. 



IV - 6 



(iai|d jsmoj) 



(» t [ j o a tt s o oo 'c; ) sspnpej suodg 



OS 

5: 



CO 
OS 

5: 

B 



2 



SJSJOH 



/9/ wijtfO |»w»D 



SJ5u2lSSQ/JStUV 



uoprapsu] annaproy 



(saoiAjas) uopaiodsirejj. 



sumasnw 



33IJJO 30ipUTI\ 



uoddns smpurw 



3$n JsiBy^ if Supeog iraopeaiMtf 



Sanpjsg feniotniisQ 7p lOuodtnsj, 



sdiqs duoisih 



Xnsnpa] 8uiqiij 



*> e 
3 U 
• >-. 
S % £ 



2 

5 81 



< W k - < W £ 



D D 



9 < u u3 



UJ 



cj 



in 



gj 



UJ 



CJ 



BJ 



CJ 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



I 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



CJ 



CJ 



CJ 



CJ 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



CJ 



CJ 



CJ 



UJ 



CJ 



CJ 



CJ 



UJ 



CJ 



CJ 



CJ 



UJ 



CJ 



CJ 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



UJ 



CJ 



CJ 



CJ 



CJ 



so. 



s 

o 



o 

.2? 

o 



3 

"8 
J3 



c 
E 
o 
U 
r 

o 
flu 



M * 

'" o 



c 
u 
-3 



8. 

« 

M 

S 
3 
_o 

X> 

m 

E. 



el 



a € 



I 1 s 

5 9 as 



1^ 



a .£■ >2 
oe o "? 

C U 

5 u — 

— "3 3 

e m « 



"8 
a 

to 



■8 

C 

E 



ISi 
■a a I 

•z •=> »> 

■o n o 

" *- = 
♦» u 2 



B..S = 

o u • 

E. « a 

u u — 

£ - 3 

*- x> * 

Sac 



q o. e 

a S 



a e = 



_ c 



s a 

u -J 

v> 

3 e 

O V 

.§ 5 

.= a 

m v 

E ."2 



.= s 

5 ,a 



!> "5? JJ 



* = 

1 S 

c oc 

< 5 



"3 x; 



■S S3 

U £ ■ 

u C 

u t» 3 

■ " 2 

£ * §" 

>, a 

.*s -c -• 

c * 



o E. 



« U 
"E 



■o ~ 



■ B 9 M 



e C 

O 3 



> o o 5 



§ If 
^ E "2 

U B. £ 

v o i 



1 a 
•E a 



It 



E - 



■55 



CJ 

e 
< 



a e 



~ U 



c ^ 



a — ~ 



s 8. 



a 

— a 

o .= 

a " 



1= £ *> 



£ - 
e e 



2 S f - •= 



5 i 



2 * 



t: -5 

5 c 

c c 

3 M 

<* U 

a 3 



2 s 

s S 

o — 

5 ^ 

O c 

. u 

*- 3 

• <J 

CJ w 



« o e ^ S 



a a - 

{S -s £ 



E 

o 



1 8 
u e 

a .1° 



•a 

W 

Q < 



S11 
lis 

*» S a 

511 



IV-8 



o 



S3 



as 



2 

1 
§ 



s 

ft. 



(Xosnpoj [UW30) 



( »> ; i e n e w QOO'r g) "DiiPBj suodS 



aSft ITOU3JHS3H 



sjaoH 



/9/ "HJO l^snao 



(smiaj^s) nonnjodsireix 



iSlUSQ JOIISIA 



sannsnw 



SS333V O'lQM 



Sunjuag reraomaiSQ 7p Xiuodmsx 



idnjs ouoisih 



Xnsnpai 8uiqsij 



£ 3 



- - S 

"* w •* e 3 .- 



Z.MSM 2 -s s 
« is is » S is S. 



o 

_2_ 



5 32 j 
< w w 

ti u n 



< w u3 



11 



< w £ 

K B H 



01 



03 



03 



U3 



03 



03 



01 



03 



■03 



03 



03 



S 



01 



03 



03 



03 



03 



03 



03 



03 



03 



03 





z 



■s 

o 



3 

"8 

c 

I 



e 2. 
a u 

* E 



— c 

§•2 



— T3 
P « 



•c -5 



C c 

s u 

c u 



3 •= 
B -5 



|s 
H 

o 

Si K 
m «• 

C J= 

c * 

•i t 

s & 

>• E 

u Ck 

■i C 
■ 5^ 



•c 
o 
•S 

3 



C 
O 



o — 



"S 



c 3 



o c 
— u 



2 -2 
c: a 



II 
2 E 



1 1 

i s. 

II 



s & 
si e 



•5 
c 

■a 



2L 
"2 



5 

J3 

a | S 

J C O 
— ™ w 
c E 



5 
"> 

B 



u 

c 



■s 

,0 



a 



■5 
o 



■S 

M 

■s 

m 

a 

B 
U 

E 
c 

u J! 



5 
•5 



1 
C 

K 
W 

>» 

m 

E 



5 

o 



C 
C 
w 

•£ 
_c 

M 

E 
o 



i 5 s 



a 



.1 1 



2 



St 

J3 



St 
55 

■5 _ 



W - 

.£ o 

• "C 
03 \j 
m 

< * 



§ J 



•> _ 

DC C 

ll 

2 c 



is g 

■= E 

c ^ 



_ c 
- m 

„ 3 



•E C 
"3 o 



C u 
31 



2 I 
2 - 



11 

M 



V — 

5= u 
O i 

■ 

e B 

If 



U3 w 

I j 
". o 



i x 

St ? 

| ! 



IV-9 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



Without parking, existing Port tenants and the Port would suffer significant decreases in 
revenues from Wharf operations. A creative solution to this challenging problem should be 
determined, such as measures to improve utilization of existing parking garages off Port 
property which rarely fill, shuttle buses or motorized cable cars and pedicabs to 
accommodate people who take public transit or park outside the Wharf, shared parking 
facilities for uses with different time needs, and parking vouchers for swim clubs and sport 
fishing patrons. 

Standards for New Development Mixed Use Opportunity Areas 

Fisherman 's Wharf Mixed Use Opportunity Area. 

The Fisherman's Wharf Mixed Use Opportunity Area includes Seawall Lot 302, Fish Alley 
(Seawall Lot 303), Pier 49, Pier 47, Pier 45 - east-side, Pier 43 V2, and the Triangle 
(Seawall Lot 301). 

Because most of the Port's property at Fisherman's Wharf already is developed, 
incremental rather than large changes are expected to be the norm at the Wharf. 
Nevertheless, because of the density of the area and the different and sometimes conflicting 
needs of the fishing industry and visitors, any changes in this area must be carefully 
managed to ensure that the needs of all the area's users are met. Additionally, an often 
stated goal is that the area should appeal more to local residents. The challenge in this area, 
therefore, is to establish the proper mix of priority fishing and other maritime activities, and 
compatible visitor-serving and revenue-generating uses to h e lp that may subsidize Wharf 
area maritime and public improvements. 

This Opportunity Area has been established to ensure that these sometimes competing needs 
are given special attention and that guidelines to help maintain the balance and quality of 
uses at the Wharf are in effect. 

Development Standards: 

General: 

• Provide new meeting spaces, restaurants, retail and equipment storage areas 
oriented towards the needs of the fishing industry, businesses and citizens in 
the area. 

• Allow new retail uses that contribute to a better balance between, and quality 
of, local and visitor-serving goods and services. 



IV - 10 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



• Encourage new Wharf activities such as arts, entertainment, educational, 
historical and recreational facilities, and places of public assembly (such as 
festival halls, meeting halls or conference centers) to increase the appeal of 
Fisherman's Wharf to local residents. 

• Review the design of any development for compatibility with the maritime 
industrial context of area and orientation towards the Bay . 

• Encourage maritime office uses on either a long-term or interim basis, to 
help support the Wharfs maritime industries, and to provide an increased 
flow of patrons for shops and restaurants during the off-season. 

• Provide a retail fish market where it would not conflict with the safe and 
efficient functioning of fish handling operations. 

• Provide berths for frequently changing historic, military and other ceremonial 
vessels to attract local residents as well as visitors, enliven public access and 
provide revenue to the Port. 

• Coordinate new development with improvements to vehicular access and 
circulation in order to minimize traffic impacts. 

• Encourage maximum coordination between merchants, fishing industry and 
existing garage and parking lot operators and install better signage to fully 
utilize existing parking. 

• Future commercial developments should meet expected dc - mtind provide for 
off-street truck loading space. 

• Provide safe and adequate truck access routes and truck loading space in this 
congested tourist area to meet the needs of fishing, retail, and other 
businesses. 

• Evaluate relocating fish truck distribution activities from Jefferson Street to 
Port property. 

• Encourage a museum of fishing industry, maritime or Wharf history. 
Fish Alley: 

• Make every effort to Preserve the existing balance between fishing and 
commercial uses, to the maximum feasible extent 



IV - 11 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



• Preserve the small scale maritime- industrial character of Fish Alley by 
retaining the older buildings, to the extent possible, and adapting them to the 
needs of and use by modern fishing-related businesses. In the event a 
building cannot be retained, then any replacement buildings must be 
consistent with the historic maritime industrial character of the area. 

• In the interior block of Fish Alley, continue to give priority to fish handling, 
processing and distribution, restaurants and bars oriented towards fishermen , 
serving the businesses and citizens m the area, chandleries, and other 
businesses serving the fishing industry, and to support services for the new 
Hyde Street Harbor, once completed. 

• If fishing-industry uses are not needed, then interim, adaptive reuse of Fish 
Alley buildings for oth e r uses oriented to the other maritime fishing industry 
activities (including warehousing, storage for maritime industries, and 
commercial services for fishermen ), other maritime activities, support 
facilities for the historic Hyde Street Pier), artist or designer studios or 
galleries, museums, or visitor-serving Wharf activities, should be considered, 
provided that they do not disrupt remaining fishing industry uses and that 
they retain the architectural character of Fish Alley. 

• Allow interim adaptive new uses only if they do not involve major capital 
investment (which tends to encourage longevity) and do not permanently 
prevent reuse for fish handling when the industry experiences an upswing. 

• Restrict any artist or designer studios or galleries in Fish Alley's interior 
block to "working artists" or other craftspersons whose activities would be 
observable by the public, particularly those related to a maritime theme, such 
as a wooden boat building center. 

• Allow a broader range of visitor-oriented artists (artist studios open to the 
public), and art galleries, maritime-related museums, and other compatible 
uses on Jefferson Street than in Fish Alley, provided that they preserve the 
architectural character of the area, serve the needs of visitors and San 
Franciscans and are compatible with adjacent retail and fishing industry uses. 

• Explore the feasibility of a direct connection between the Hyde Street Pier 
and Fish Alley. 



IV - 12 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



Pier 45 East Side: 

• Develop a Fisheries Center if there is a demonstrated demand for it, and it 
can be financially viable. 

• Allow parking inside the sheds to support the fishing industry, Fisheries 
Center, aad or new uses on Pier 45, or to replace parking that could be 
relocated from other Wharf sites that are more appropriate for open space. 
Any shed parking should be oriented toward the interior of the Pier, leaving 
the eastern sides of the sheds for uses that encourage and enhance public 
access on the east side of the Pier. 

• Consider water-taxi, shuttle bus service and other means of reducing traffic 
congestion if the Fisheries Center is developed. 

• Continue historic ship and ceremonial berthing. 

• Provide public access on the eastside of Pier 45 and activate the access with 
retail, museum, Fisheries Center, assembly and entertainment and other uses 
in Sheds A and C to attract the public. 

• If feasible, incorporate an appropriately sized s mall open space at the 
southern end of Pier 45, with an accessory retail use oriented to users of the 
open space. 

Pier 43 ft and the Triangle (Seawall Lot 301): 

• Continue to explore possible relocation sites, including an underground 
garage, for the Triangle and Pier 43 x h parking, provided that relocation sites 
do not reduce existing parking capacity, and meet the needs of the existing 
restaurants and Wharf businesses that depend on adjacent parking. 

• With the existing long term lessee, explore the feasibility of replacing self 
parking at Pier 43 x h with a smaller valet parking area in order to make more 
open space available. 

• If the Triangle parking is replaced, pursue the possibility of u l arge an 
appropriately sized open space to accommodate day-to-day Wharf activities 
as well as special festival or City celebrations. 



IV - 13 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



• Explore the feasibility of replacing retail buildings on the Triangle with a 
"Market Hall" containing food and flower stalls, indoor and outdoor cafes 
and other compatible uses, with "transparent" design providing views through 
the building to the Bay. 

• Consider expansion of commercial uses at Pier or the Triangle, only if 
part of a mixed use project attracting local visitors [such as the market hall], 
in exchange for which Includes public access and open space improvements, 
reduction or relocation of existing parking, or other significant public 
benefits. 

• Any expansion of building space at Pier 43 Vi should not block Bay views 
from the Mason Street view corridors. 

Standards for Other Existing Maritime or Maritime Expansion Areas 

{Jses 

Aquatic Park Docks (Portion of South End Rowing Club & Dolphin Club) 

Development Standards: 

• Continue recreational boating and water activities, including aquatic 
activities, swimming, rowing, running, and other sports. 

• Prohibit exclusive memberships by allowing pay-as-you-go use of the 
facilities. 

• Require compliance with all public access requirements imposed either by the 
Department of Parks and Recreation (primary jurisdiction over Aquatic Park) 
or by BCDC. 

• Retain availability of the water around the docks for non-members without 
charge and without time restrictions. 

• Encourage additional public access in the area. 
Hyde Street Pier 

Development Standards: 



IV - 14 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



• Operate existing pier primarily for a Maritime Historical Park and support 
functions, including concessions, excursions, related special events and 
maritime educational programs. 

• Use and placement of historic ships should not interfere with the development 
of the proposed Hyde Street Harbor or other operations of the fishing 
industry. 

• Minimize impacts of exhibits and ships on views of the Golden Gate Bridge . 

• Encourage additional free public access in the area. 
Hyde Street Harbor (future) 

Development Standards: 

• Complete the Hyde Street Harbor as soon as possible. 

• Provide gear storage, loading and unloading areas, and short and long term 
parking as close to the new berths as possible. Give priority to support 
services for the Hyde Street Harbor when completed and, as space becomes 
available, in Fish Alley. 

• Operate and manage the Harbor to ensure the highest feasible compliance 
with all applicable environmental and water quality in the Harbor laws and 
regulations. 

• Allow recreational boats to use the Harbor only during times when the 
Harbor is not fully utilized by the fishing industry. 

• Provide public access where it would not conflict with fishing operations. 

• Explore the feasibility of a direct connection between the Hyde Street Pier 
and Fish Alley. 

Inner and Outer Lagoons 

Development Standards: 

• Without detracting from the historic character of the lagoons, retain and 
improve berthing for a mix of active fishing, historic Monterey, and other 



IV - 15 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



boats to ensure that a variety of boats are available throughout the day so that 
the public has an opportunity to see the working waterfront close at hand. 

• Provide a floating dock for loading and unloading gear and people, 
particularly for the charter sport fishing businesses. 

• Allow an informational kiosk to inform the public about the availability of 
sportfishing and charter tours at this location, provided that it does not 
interfere with the flow of pedestrians. 

Pier 45 - West Side 

Development Standards: 

• Give priority to fish handling businesses. 

• Allow a retail fish market or similar business at the south end of Shed B. 

• Allow fishing and maritime support facilities, maritime offices, or visitor- 
serving activities r e lated to th e Fish e ries Center at the north end of Shed D, 
that is not accessible to large trucks required for fish handling operations. 

• Pursue the feasibility of a cantilevered truck turnaround at the north end of 
the Pier to facilitate semi-truck turnarounds. 

• Control public access in the active fish unloading area on the westside of the 
Pier so that it doesn't interfere with fish handling. 



Piers 41 Vz and through 43 'A (waterside) 

Development Standards: 

• Continue existing, and accommodat e promote new and expanded, ferry, 
excursion and water-taxi operations, including new berths and landing 
facilities, if necessary. 

* Accommodate the possible need for additional ferry berthing. 

* Study th e feasibility of a landing facility for ferri e s, e xcursions and water 

taxis. 



IV - 16 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



• Provide queuing areas for ferry and excursion patrons that are protected from 
inclement weather and that have the least possible impact on pedestrian 
circulation. 

Pier 39 (waterside) 

Development Standards: 

• Continue to use area primarily for recreational boating and water use and 
ferry & excursion operations. 

• Allow for future possible water-taxi stop to serve visitors to Pier 39. 

• Allow for future possible berths for an everchanging display of historic or 
ceremonial ships to draw local residents to the waterfront. 

Standards for Other Existing or New Open Spaces and Public Access 

Pier 43 (Ferry Arch) 

Development Standards: 

• Complete public access and open space improvements planned in conjunction 
with the Pier 39 Underwater World project, to provide safe public access and 
open space by the restored Ferry Arch. 

• Remove the deteriorated portion of Pier 43 that extends into the Bay, north 
of the Ferry Arch. 

• Provide pedestrian connections to neighboring public access areas, while 
making the Ferry Arch the focal point of the area. 

• Allow an accessory retail, (r e staurant) amusement and/or visitor-serving 
information use to serve the users of the new open space. 

• Consider feasibility of a landing facility for ferries, excursions and water- 
taxis. 



IV - 17 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Fisherman 's Wharf Waterfront 



Pier 41 

Development Standards: 

• Continue use as a public access pier atop the Pier 39 West Marina 
breakwater. 

• Maintain the fishing platform at the Bay end of Pier 41. 

Pier 39 Open Space (extending from Pier 41 to Pier 35, along The Embarcadero). 

• Continue to provide high quality, well-landscaped open space. 

• Improve views of the marina and the Bay, where feasible. 



AC/Q/L:\draftpln.3\Mstr-Ch4 



IV - 18 



THE NORTHEAST WATERFRONT 



The northeast waterfront extends from Pier 35 to Pier 7. 

Objectives For The Northeast Waterfront 

Maximize opportunities for the retention of maritime operations. 

The northeast waterfront has undergone great change in the last 25 years, like much of the 
formerly industrial waterfront north of China Basin. Several of the finger piers which at 
their peak received a myriad of cruise and break-bulk cargo ships still support maritime 
functions, but at a much lower intensity. Three piers continue to function exclusively as 
cargo-related facilities. Piers 27-29 are operated as a newsprint shipping terminal, while 
Piers 15-17 and 19-23 are used for cargo warehousing and transhipment, and the Port's 
Foreign Trade Zone. The Port's passenger cruise terminal is located at Pier 35, and Pier 
31V2 is the site of an excursion boat operation. In addition, the northeast waterfront 
includes sites for a number of maritime support activities, such as tug and tow boat 
berthing, and the headquarters of the San Francisco Bar Pilots Association at Pier 9. The 
maritime ambiance of this area is further reinforced by the striking series of bulkhead 
buildings on Piers 9, 15, 19, 23, 29, 31, 33 and 35, which provide unique architectural, 
historic, and maritime character. 

In spite of the maritime activities still present in the northeast waterfront, the transformation 
of lands adjacent to the Port to mixed commercial and residential uses has introduced 
conditions that, over time, have reduced the viability of the area for cargo shipping and its 
related support operations. The evolution of the larger area has changed the function of The 
Embarcadero from an industrial service road accessing the piers, to a major arterial in the 
City's street system. With construction of the Waterfront Transportation Projects, which 
will recast The Embarcadero as a beautified urban boulevard with enhanced public transit 
and other modes of transportation, truck access to the piers will be further hampered. 

As the vast majority of cargo-related operations have shifted to the southern waterfront it 
is likely that the remaining cargo activity in the northeast waterfront will follow suit. 
However, other maritime activities will continue to thrive in the northeast waterfront, 
through the expansion and improvement of excursion boats, water taxi operations, 
recreational boating, berthing of pilot, tugboats and historic ships, and passenger cruises 
Unlike cargo operations, these commercial-and recreation-oriented maritime activities are 
fully compatible with waterside public access improvements, and are thus conducive to 
opening up the northeast waterfront for enjoyment by all people of the City and State 

Activate this area with an array of uses that establish a daytime and nighttime presence, 
but which are not primarily tourist-oriented. 



IV - 19 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



New activities in the northeast waterfront should build upon the varied land use context in 
the area by extending the vitality of the surrounding districts to the waterfront. The mix 
of activities should reflect the City's cultural diversity and other attributes which appeal 
to the local and regional population, thereby providing entertainment and commercial 
. recreation venues distinctly different from the more tourist-oriented activities in 
Fisherman's Wharf. 

Existing land uses on Port property, as well as in the larger area beyond the Port, provide 
a rich context to support new activities along the waterfront. Along The Embarcadero, 
existing developments on Port seawall lots include the Francisco Bay Office Park between 
Sansome and Bay Streets (SWLs 315, 316, 317), Fog City Diner at Battery Street (SWL 
319), and the landmark Belt Railway Roundhouse office building at Lombard Street (SWL 
318). Developments on the other side of the Port jurisdiction line include the Levi Plaza 
office and retail complex, and many office and design-related businesses in restored historic 
buildings along Battery and Sansome Street. In addition, the inland area includes 
established residential enclaves at the foot of Telegraph Hill and in the Golden Gateway 
mixed-use complex. This area, transformed from its industrial beginnings, is now regarded 
as a stable and desirable urban location. 

The mix of uses found in upland locations highlights the need for people-oriented activities 
on surplus piers. Because of the formerly industrial focus of the area, most of the piers 
have not been designed with amenities or features that serve the general public. Currently, 
the one major public amenity in the area is Pier 7, a recently constructed, award- winning 
public access and fishing pier that extends 900 feet into the Bay. Further north, a few 
restaurants and bars such as the Pier 23 Cafe provide limited commercial services to 
passersby. These auxiliary commercial activities, which have co-existed with neighboring 
maritime operations, should be expanded wherever possible. 

Many of the piers not in exclusive cargo-related use should accommodate activities which 
integrate new public access experiences with existing and expanded maritime operations. 
These dev e lopm e nt objectives also apply to Similarly, the five underutilized seawall lots 
(SWLs 314, 321, 322-1, 323, 324), which are currently used for surface parking lots and 
a gas station should be developed with uses that activate the waterfront and are integrated 
with adjacent uses If developed in conjunction with adjacent piers, these seawall lots could 
provide support space and parking for the pier activities, as well as sites for mixed use 
hotel, office or residential developments with ground floor retail uses. In addition, the 
seawall lots should provide a smooth transition from inland neighborhood uses to shoreline 
improvements, making this area a destination that is inviting to local residents. 

Protect and enhance the historic maritime character of this area. 



IV - 20 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



New development in the northeast waterfront area should be sensitive to the rich maritime 
history that is preserved in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, the ribbon of pier 
bulkhead buildings along The Embarcadero, and the maritime activities that still take place 
on many of the piers. This should be accomplished by integrating maritime activities with 
commercial recreation activities on surplus piers, and requiring building and site designs 
which balance the need for new activities with the area's historic maritime character. 
Fortunately, many of the architecturally rich brick and concrete structures originally built 
for the maritime and industrial operations which once dominated the area have been 
renovated for modern office and retail uses, thereby preserving the character of the Historic 
District while establishing a strong economic base. Five Port seawall lots are included in 
the Historic District, of which four are undeveloped. Development of any one of these 
parcels must therefore include a design that reinforces and enhances the unique character 
and history embodied in this District. 

New development should highlight the location of the area as a gateway to the North 
Beach and Chinatown neighborhoods to the west, and Fisherman's Wharf to the north. 

The northeast waterfront is located at the crossroads between the City's downtown district, 
North Beach and Chinatown neighborhoods, and Fisherman's Wharf. These areas rely 
heavily on The Embarcadero as a main point of access by visitors and residents alike, 
particularly since the demolition of The Embarcadero Freeway. New development along 
The Embarcadero, particularly near Broadway and Bay Streets, therefore should be designed 
to provide an orientation point for entrance into these adjacent districts. 

Provide new public access amenities that highlight newly created points of interest. 

In spite of deteriorating sidewalk conditions and a shortage of waterside public amenities 
in the area, The Embarcadero has been and continues to be a magnet for bicyclists, skaters, 
walkers and joggers. While the Waterfront Transportation Projects will provide major 
aesthetic, transit and pedestrian improvements along the Embarcadero, there is a need to 
expand public access onto the piers themselves, including places for people to relax and 
enjoy the views, and experience the sensation of being at the water's edge. 

For example a boardwalk — a PortWalk - could link the pier perimeters, offering 
pedestrians the pleasure of strolling leisurely from one activity to another, and connect me 
with the Waterfront Transportation Projects pedestrian improvements and the Pier 7 open 
space pier. In so doing, the PortWalk adds a means for active enjoyment of the sights and 
sounds of the waterfront, without requiring actual interaction with the various entertainment 
and other activities offered along the way. 



IV - 21 




IV-22 



to 



5 

ess 
3 



s 

ft. 































(Xnsnpui ruauao) 




O 
























J33DS3 OOpOCDai^pUX 5[TSS|Oq^ 


< 


< 










< 




< 










(stoats) 9°?* toqajiM 




5 




X 

UJ 








X 

5? 

UJ 












































X 
u 


u 


X 


UJ 




X 


X 


X 


UJ 


X 

uj 


X 

SJ 






< 


u 


uj 




UJ 




< 


UJ . 


< 


< 


< 


u 




ts[\ [epospissy 






< 




< 










< 








sp»H 






< 




< 










< 








/9/ »!»0 I"3D99 




s 


< 




UJ 




• 

UJ 




UJ 


01 


s 






laaannaiania 7 Xjqtnassv 




< 










< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


























< 








sssudiaag pruopeaiosy 














< 


< 


< 


< 








Dopraasai ormspeov 




























(saxAjas) aopwodsroj. 




























jajasQ JOjm a 


< 


< 




















< 




sapipsij Xjrunnrai03 










X 




< 


< 


< 


X 








sumasnw 


< 


< 










< 


< 


< 


< 




< 








< 






uj 


UJ 


< 




< 


< 






01 




< 


< 




< 


01 




< 


< 


< 




< 


< 


01 






< 




< 






01 


UJ 


UJ 




01 






jprdyg drqs 




























uoddng xnnuTW 




< 




< 






01 


u 


UJ 




01 






asrruo 


UJ 


< 










< 




























01 


01 


BJ 










asn jajey^ Tg Sopeog rroopeaiDsy 






















< 






2nnpj>g rrra 0010133 7 Xjuodmaj. 


01 












01 


< 


01 




< 






sdrqs duoisih 


< 


< 










< 




< 












< 


< 










< 


< 


< 




< 








< 


w 










< 


< 


< 




u 






Xnsnpu] Sunpij 




u 
























NOTE KEY: 

A = Acceptable Use 

E * Existing Acceptable Use ISI 

EJl - Existing Use/May Continue 

As Interim Use 
X ■ Accessory Use 
(E/X - Existing Accessory Use) 
( ) * Proposed Revision 


•"■> 
1. 
jj 

j§ 


3: 
<: 

n 

r"> 

c 

.V 
fh 


SWL 314 


.s 


SWL i 315. 316. 317. 318. (319. 322) 



in* 

fn 
-J 


O* 
r* 

r» 

fN 

£1 


r* 
bV 

jj 


%r\ 
Jj 


«x 
t~\ 

r>* 
r*\ 

r*"t 

'mi 


0" 

V 
a. 


< 

5 


* f 



E 



I 
o 
u 

3 



c 

e 



3 
O 

■c 

O 



1 I 

S 1 



I t 



s 
S 

"2 
J 

c 

I 



E 
c 
U 
c 
o 



i 



■S 



e j> j 

I- 
u — — 



8.11 
3 s • 

III 

ill 

»» c V 



JS -3 C 
B ■ 'S 

j3 ». 3 
■5 w ** 

• ■ — 

£ E JS 
1| 



— 

u 



c o 

1 I 



■s 

■ 

m 

e 
S 
c 
c 

e ^ 



1 - 

Hi 

* "5 1 4 

.ii t. " 

'£ !| K js 

ill* 

O ■ 3 e 

m Z -s 3 
s< a - - 
= B c S 

g 5 1 ! 

T - S I 
c ■ Z 9 

« c - u 

tell 

3 2 5 y. 



B> 

H 
M 

Ji 
>. 

s 

> 5 'I 

- ■ i 

^ - i 

if I 

-S E w 
v = 

111 
li 



£ I 
1 



K c V 



3 »_ 

C 



1 " 

" I 

I I 

! 1 



Z o 

5 5 

1 ! 



if!' 

Mil 



X - 



2 5 
s * 

3 , 



— e 
v a 

js — 

.« -s 

* o 



5 it 



e u » 
* 2 I 

II r 

B e — 

s - a 

ill 
-j 1 

*~ c 

i s : 

C]| 

-II 

U o * 

si* 

= - f 

V V 3 

c 

^ = ? 

c ^ I 

W W 

111 
s I 

<• C til "* 

^ v= r - 

S >! I 
- - 



11 

a s 

5 4S 
i| 
2 x 

1 E 

J 5 

— c 



! * 



IS 

mm - 

f ji 

M ■ • 

*< . t: 

I -a I 

c > 

u O 

Si* 

i: = c 

it i 

G I _ 

t ~ 



£ 

i j* j 

§ ! l 

*l v • 

Ell 

C ? 2 

^ c - 1 

? 1 2 

5 S c 

5 I I 



«sj V ^ 

w ^ - 

is s 
1 if 1 

S n 



IV-23 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



Standards For New Development Mixed Use Opportunity Areas 

Bay Street Pier Mixed Use Opportunity Area. The Bay Street Pier Mixed Use Opportunity 
Area includes Piers 35, 33, 31 and Seawall Lot 314 (Assessor's Block 35), located at the 
threshold of Fisherman's Wharf. Through careful integration of uses on Seawall Lot 314 
and Pier 35, development of this Opportunity Area will establish a clear entry point to one 
of the most popular visitor destinations in the country. 

Pier 35 is currently used as the Port's passenger cruise terminal. Although cruise 
passengers have long viewed San Francisco as one of the most beloved port cities in the 
world, recent trends limit the number of cruise calls to an average of 38 per year (see 
Appendix A). Nevertheless, industry officials consider this Opportunity Area to be a highly 
desirable and convenient location for the limited amount of cruise activity occurring in San 
Francisco. On the other hand, Pier 35 lacks many amenities provided in modern cruise 
terminals, and because of its physical constraints passengers and ships cannot be efficiently 
served. Like an airport, cruise terminals should provide separate areas to serve passengers, 
and prepare the ships. The long and narrow shape of Pier 35 does not provide enough 
space to permit this separation of activities. 

If San Francisco were to capture more cruise business in the future, a modern terminal 
facility could be developed by combining Piers 35 and 33, which would likely require some 
new fill between the piers. In combination with other attractions, such as a public events 
facility, these piers could be converted to uses that establish a visually exciting gathering 
place that includes a PortWalk public access feature extending throughout the complex. 

Development on Seawall Lot 314 should be a counterpart to improvements in Piers 35 and 
33. For example, A small a landside hotel, consistent with existing height and bulk 
limitations for the site, would complement a cruise terminal or public events facility. 
Successfully designed and executed, the combination of these activities framing The 
Embarcadero would also provide a fitting entrance to Fisherman's Wharf. 

If Pier 33 is not developed as part of a cruise terminal, or if Pier 35 ceases to be operated 
as a cruise terminal, these piers should still be locations for entertainment and other 
assembly activities, such as a conference center. In addition, other maritime activities such 
as the Hornblowcr Dining Yachts excursion boat terminal at Pier 3VA should be retained. 

Pier 33 currently operates primarily as a warehouse, with maritime and general offices in 
the adjacent bulkhead building. In recent years, a number of fish processing businesses 
have also occupied this facility. Like Pier 33, Pier 31 is currently being used as a 
warehouse facility. These warehouses are valuable to the Port, in light of the steady market 
demand that exists for storage facilities. As such, warehousing should therefore be 



IV - 24 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



permitted as an interim use on these two sites. The long term future use of Pier 31 will be 
influenced by any changes in the cargo shipping operations on adjacent piers to the south, 
or new public attractions on Piers 33 and 35 to the north. 

Development Standards: 

• If existing cruise terminal operations remain at Pier 35, improve facilities 
where feasible, by upgrading the decor of the terminal, and providing 
elevators, public access, and bon voyage areas. 

• Promote shared uses in the cruise terminal that highlight the terminal's 
function as a gathering place for people and maintain year-round activity 
even when ships are not in port. 

• If Pier 35 ceases to be used as a cruise terminal, permit entertainment and 
assembly activities that foster public enjoyment in the area. 

• Any new cruise terminal, whether on Piers 33 and 35 or another site should 
include the following features: 

a) Two berths 

b) Separate areas that are sufficient in size to serve ships and passengers 

c) Major public access features, including a bon voyage area 

d) Sufficient areas for taxi, bus and car drop-off and pick-up areas 

e) Retail, exhibits, and other attractions to complement the cruise 
operations 

f) Parking and other transportation programs to minimize traffic 
congestion in the area when passengers are embarking and 
disembarking 

• Promote active, publicly-oriented uses and development design for Pier 35 
and Seawall Lot 314 that provide a fitting gateway to Fisherman's Wharf 

• Maintain Bay Street as a major view corridor. 

• Preserve the facades of the ef Piers 31, 33, and 35 pierhead building 
unless otherwise indicated in the comprehensive urban design and historic 



IV - 25 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



preservation guidelines that will be prepared fox the Port, as recommended 
in this Plan (See Chapter 3, p. 111-20, General Policy # 13). 

• Promote excursion boats, water taxi, historic and ceremonial ships berthing 
and other maritime activities. 

• Permit warehousing on Pier 33 as an interim use. 

• Provide flexibility by allowing Permit a broad range of interim uses on Pier 
31 which, for the foreseeable future, because it is most likely to continue to 
operate as a support facility rather than as a primary center location for 
major maritime industry or non-maritime activities. 

Broadway Pier Mixed Use Opportunity Area. The Broadway Pier Mixed Use Opportunity 
Area includes Pier 9, Seawall Lots 321, 322-1, 323, and 324 (Assessor's Blocks 110, 138, 
139 and a portion of 140, respectively). The seawall lots, which are currently used for 
surface parking lots, are among the most valuable of all the Port's real estate assets, because 
of their prime location adjacent to downtown, the Pier 7 public access and fishing pier, and 
the Golden Gateway residential neighborhood. These parcels have high near-term revenue- 
generating potential for the Port, and optimizing revenue should be a strong consideration 
in their development. 

The mix of residential, office and small-scale retail activities found in upland areas suggests 
a broad range of use opportunities for the seawall lots in this Opportunity Area. In 
addition, Pier 7 provides a tremendous public open space amenity and focal point which 
will further enhance the character of new development in this Opportunity Area. With the 
demolition of The Embarcadero Freeway along Broadway, the area is ready for the 
introduction of new commercial and waterside activities that are visually and physically 
integrated with the Golden Gateway neighborhood, and development of these seawall lots 
will provide the critical link. 

For example, the western portion of Pier 9 would be an ideal location for a sailing center, 
where boating services, boat rentals and transient boat berthing, including berths for large 
yachts, and sailing events could take place on the south side of the pier in full view of 
onlookers strolling along The Embarcadero and Pier 7. A sailing center also would be 
compatible with the San Francisco Bar Pilots Association, headquartered on the eastern 
portion of the pier. Expansion of public-oriented waterside activities will also create a more 
desirable setting for new commercial (including hotel or residential development on adjacent 
inland property, particularly Seawall Lots 323 and 324, where financial return is a key 
determinant. These parcels are pivotal sites for weaving the waterfront into the broader 
City context. 



IV - 26 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



To a large extent, development of Seawall Lot 321 likely will depend on the future of the 
Pier 15-17 cargo warehouse, a Transitional Maritime Site located immediately across The 
Embarcadero. Similar to Seawall Lots 323 and 324, Seawall Lot 321 is a key site for infill 
commercial and residential development which would extend City life out to The 
Embarcadero. 

The seawall lots in this Opportunity Area are included in the Northeast Waterfront Historic 
District. The design of new development therefore must respect and enhance the historic 
and architectural character of adjacent development. 

Development Standards: 

• Design new developments to focus on and further enhance the Pier 7 public 
access and fishing pier. 

• Design new seawall lot developments in a manner that respects the rich 
architecture in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District. 

• Include design features in any new commercial or residential development on 
Seawall Lots 323 and 324 that highlight the intersection of Broadway and 
The Embarcadero as an entrance to Chinatown and North Beach, and as an 
orientation point along the waterfront. 

• P e rmit Encourage publicly-oriented recreation and entertainment activities on 
Pier 9 which are compatible with the San Francisco Bar Pilots Association 
administrative headquarters, water taxi operations, and berthing of pilot, tug 
and tow, and ferry and excursion boat vessels. 

• Give priority to cargo support uses on Piers 15-17 for as long as necessary. 
Permit publicly-oriented commercial maritime and non-maritime uses only 
if the facility is declared surplus to the Port's cargo operations, or if suitable 
relocation sites are identified. 

• Maintain and enhance the views of the waterfront along Broadway. 

• Carefully design transportation access to seawall lot developments from 
Broadway and The Embarcadero, to minimize congestion on these major 
arterial streets. 



IV - 27 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



Standards for Transitional Maritime Facilities: Piers 15-17, 19-23, 

27-29. 

These piers are designated as Transitional Maritime Facilities, in recognition of the trend 
toward consolidating cargo operations in the southern waterfront. However, cargo-related 
operations at these facilities should be allowed to remain as long as the Port determines 
them to be economically and operationally viable. 

In the event that these facilities are no longer required exclusively for maritime operations 
(See Chapter 3, p. J$L~1 regarding criteria used to determine whether they are surplus sites), 
reuse of the facilities should include a mix of maritime and commercial activities that 
respond to the goals stated for the northeast waterfront. Because the uses on these facilities 
will extend for a combined 2,400 feet along The Embarcadero, they will heavily impact the 
overall character of the area. This influence is particularly noteworthy for Piers 15-17, 
which are adjacent to four of the Port's vacant seawall lots. 

In particular, Piers 27-29 and 15-17 provide key opportunities for publicly-oriented activities 
due to the large area of each facility. Either site could be a location for a public market, 
or family-oriented entertainment facility, which could include educational and cultural 
themes that distinguish this attraction from others that are geared toward tourists. 

Piers 27-29 also could provide a desirable site for a modern cruise terminal. The site is 
large enough to meet the operational requirements of a new terminal, and to provide for 
other publicly-oriented commercial activities that will maintain a lively presence in the area 
when ships are not in port. 

Development Standards: 

• Operate Piers 15-17 as a cargo-support warehouse facility as long as 
necessary, unless it is possible to relocate this operation to alternate upland 
locations, or maritime sites in the southern waterfront. 

• Operate Piers 19-23 as a duty-free Foreign Trade Zone warehouse serving 
the Port's cargo shipping and cruise businesses as long as necessary, unless 
it is possible to relocate it to alternate upland sites, and/or consolidate some 
of this activity with the Port's cruise terminal operations. 

• Continue tug and tow berthing and repair operations on Piers 15-17 or other 
piers in the northeast waterfront as long as possible and practical. 



IV - 28 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



Permit accessory non-maritime commercial uses or community facilities in 
pierhead, bulkhead or incidental buildings fronting on the east side of The 
Embarcadero, if the space is not needed for maritime-related operations. 

If the Transitional Maritime sites are no longer necessary for cargo related 
uses, pursue a mix of activities that achieve the following: 

a) Provide outlets for family-oriented entertainment, incorporating 
cultural, educational or other themes that appeal particularly to 
residents of the City and Bay Area. 

b) Include maritime activities such as historic ships, excursion boats, or 
cruise operations as an integral part of the mix of uses, to the 
maximum feasible extent. 

c) Arrange and design uses on the piers to maximize public appreciation 
and enjoyment of the waterfront setting by offering new viewing 
opportunities, promoting waterborne transportation services and 
including an integrated public access program. 

d) Provide varied public access improvements such as a PortWalk which 
organizes circulation on the pier; provides access along the pier 
perimeter to the maximum possible extent; incorporates plazas in 
which people can congregate; and includes landscaping and other 
treatments that enhance the aesthetic quality of public access features. 

Plan new uses on these piers with an understanding of how they will relate 
with new development on adjacent seawall lots. If feasible, develop urban 
design guidelines for the area including Piers 9, 15-17, 19-23, 27-29, and 
Seawall Lots 321, 323, 324, prior to pursuing individual developments. 

Ensure that the exterior architectural and design aspects of new pier activities 
are sensitive to and enhance the rich historic industrial maritime character of 
the adjacent Northeast Waterfront Historic District. 

Mak e s p e cial e fforts to Promote public transit as a primary mode of 
transportation and m — order — te — minimize congest i on, — by — m i nimizing 
automobile use, and maximize the efficient use of new and existing parking 
operations facilities. 



IV - 29 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Northeast Waterfront 



Standards far Other Open Spaces and Public Access Areas . 



Pier 7 



Development Standards: 

• Provide improvements, such as public information kiosks, nearby public 
restrooms, and sales of refreshments from a limited number of pushcarts that 
increase active use and enjoyment of this charming waterfront open space 
resource, while maintaining an orderly, uncluttered appearance in the area. 

• Improve regular maintenance of Pier 7. 



DO/pj/L: draftpln.3\Msir-Ch4 



IV - 30 



THE FERRY BUILDING WATERFRONT 



The Ferry Building Waterfront extends from the Pier 5 bulkhead building on the north, to 
the site of the future Rincon Park, near Pier 22 Vi at the south end of Embarcadero 
promenade and includes Seawall Lot 351 on the westside of The Embarcadero across from 
Pier 3. The focal point of this area is the historic Ferry Building. 

Objectives for the Ferry Building Waterfront 

Preserve and restore historic structures on the Ferry Building Waterfront, both to recall 
the area y s historic use and to accommodate new uses. 

The Ferry Building area offers a prime opportunity for preserving the historic context of the 
waterfront, while also providing for new and revitalized activities along the shore. The 
Ferry Building is a City landmark that also is listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places. Originally named the Union Depot and Ferry House, this stately structure, with its 
clock tower situated at the terminus of the Market Street corridor, marks an historic entry 
and departure point for the City. Although once a bustling ferry terminal, the building 
currently is used mostly for offices, including the Port's administrative headquarters, as well 
as many businesses active in international trade. 

In spite of the fact that the Ferry Building is the centerpiece of the waterfront and a key 
orientation point for the downtown, it currently lacks the sense of place and purpose that 
should be accorded a building of such historic importance. In the late 1950s and early 
1960s, both the north and south wings of the Building were altered. These "modernization" 
efforts, widely considered an affront to a once grand example of Neo-Classical Beaux Arts 
architecture, included reconfiguration of the Building's ground floor uses in such a way as 
to confound, if not actually discourage, the public from entering or walking around the 
building. The impact of these significant modifications became more evident to the general 
public after The Embarcadero Freeway was demolished in 1992. 

The Ferry Building Waterfront also hosts other significant architectural structures. To the 
south of the Ferry Building, the former U.S. Agriculture Building is used for offices. The 
Agriculture Building is a modified palazzo building with Renaissance ornamentation and. 
like the Ferry Building, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Originally the 
Building contained a public lobby with offices above. The interior of the Building has been 
modified by numerous tenants and little remains today of the original elements or materials, 
except for the staircase at The Embarcadero entrance. 

The pierhead and bulkhead structures of Piers 1 through 5 are visually connected with the 
Ferry Building, adding to the strong architectural and historic character of this area. These 
bulkh e ad buildings, structures, which are highly rated by the Foundation for San 



IV - 31 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



Francisco's Architectural Heritage for their architectural and historic significance, were also 
previously cut off from the City by The Embarcadero Freeway. These buildings will 
become even more prominent as a result of the roadway and open space improvements 



planned for the area. Oil 


the other hand, 


the 


removal of the Embarcadero Freeway also 


provides 


an opportunity to 


consider 


whether 


some part of these or other structures around 


the 


Ferry Building should 


be 


removed 


to 


open up views to the Bay, Preparation of the 



Urban Design Guidelines called for in this Plan offer the opportunity to further consider the 
costs and benefits of such action. 



The Embarcadero Freeway demolition has focused public attention on the Ferry Building 
Waterfront, recalling a time when the area served as the primary gateway to the City. The 
challenge today is to return these functions to the area and to introduce new activities and 
connections to the water, while also restoring the area's historic dignity and maritime 
character. The restoration and adaptive reuse of the Ferry Building and the surrounding 
buildings and piers are critical to the reunification of the City with its waterfront, and to 
reestablishing the Ferry Building's civic importance. The Ferry Building restoration should 
continue to be one of the highest priorities of the Port Commission. 

Provide maritime facilities for ferry and excursion boats, recreational boats, historic 
ships, and ceremonial berthing. 

In the early 1980's, all the finger piers between the Ferry Building and Pier 22V2 were 
removed and replaced with the Embarcadero Promenade, a public accessway that provides 
welcome relief from the urban congestion of downtown. Except for ferry operations at the 
Ferry Building, and historic ship docking at Pier 3, maritime activities are no longer 
significant in this area. As an integral part of revitalizing the Ferry Building Waterfront, 
new maritime activities should be developed for the public to enjoy. 

In particular, because of its close proximity to transit and downtown, this area is a prime 
location for: 1) expansion of ferry operations to meet the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission's projections for increased ferry ridership in the Bay area; 2) excursion boat 
operations that require high visibility and close proximity to downtown; 3) historic ships and 
ceremonial ships to draw people to the waterfront; and 4) recreational boat moorings to 
permit boaters to stop and enjoy downtown San Francisco for the day. Additionally, this 
area offers a prime opportunity to accommodate new modes of waterborne transit, including 
water taxis and airport hovercrafts, because of its proximity to the downtown commuter, 
business and tourist centers. 

Provide a mix of uses that emphasizes the civic importance of the area, generates 
waterfront activity and serves San Franciscans and visitors alike. 



IV - 32 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



The Ferry Building Waterfront abuts downtown San Francisco's diverse mix of urban 
activities. Although this downtown area is dominated by highrise buildings, the edge closest 
to the water is characterized by smaller scale commercial structures, as well as large open 
spaces such as Justin Herman Plaza. The northern part of the area is adjacent to Golden 
Gateway, a waterfront neighborhood containing low to high-rise residential and commercial 
development. The southern part of the area is adjacent to the emerging Rincon Hill and 
Rincon Point mixed commercial and residential districts. In addition to the maritime 
activities discussed above, non-maritime land uses occurring on Port property include 
offices, restaurants, retail, parking, public access and a service station. New open spaces 
and ancillary commercial developments have been proposed for the mostly non-Port 
properties immediately across The Embarcadero that were vacated through demolition of 
The Embarcadero Freeway. 

Because of its central and very visible location, the diversity of adjacent uses, and the 
significant transportation and open space improvements planned or underway for the broader 
area, the Ferry Building Waterfront should host an exciting array of maritime, commercial, 
civic, open space, recreation and other waterfront activities. New uses should draw people 
into the Ferry Building, so that it becomes a more inviting, lively and interesting place to 
be - a destination in its own right. The area should provide both a place for downtown 
workers to enjoy lunchtime or after hours activities, as well as a destination for other San 
Franciscans and visitors who might not ordinarily come to the area during the course of 
their daily routine. New uses should generate activity during evenings and weekends to 
complement the weekday office uses in the adjacent downtown. 

Extend the PortWalk through the area, providing more convenient, direct and aesthetically 
pleasing public access connections to open space areas and the Bay. 

Currently, there are many public access opportunities in this area, including the 
Embarcadero Promenade, public access at Pier 3, the Ferry Plaza and Justin Herman Plaza 
However, because these areas are not particularly well connected to the City and to each 
other, they are not well used. Ferry Plaza, located on the east side of the Ferry Building, 
provides a mix of activities to serve the public, including the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal, 
Gabbiano's restaurant, public accessways on top of the Golden Gate Terminal and along the 
south and east sides of the Plaza, and open space in the center of the Plaza. Unfortunately, 
pedestrian flow between The Embarcadero and the Plaza is impeded by parking along the 
southside of the Ferry Building, and the only access through the Building itself is a dark, 
seven foot wide walkway in the middle of the south wing. 

A similar problem exists at Pier 1/2 on the north side of the Building, where parking lies 
between The Embarcadero and the North Ferry Terminal. Pedestrian access along the Bay 
between the Ferry Plaza and Pier 1/2 is not continuous, so ferry riders who go to the wrong 
terminal must return to The Embarcadero to go around to the other side of the Fern 



IV - 33 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



Building, because the public can not walk along the water's edge. The challenge in these 
areas is to find the proper balance between parking and circulation, public access and open 
space. 

Studies are underway for open space improvements in front of the Ferry Building to extend 
the open space system on the other side of The Embarcadero in Justin Herman Plaza and 
the area under the former Clay /Washington Street freeway ramps to the bay side. The goal 
is to create a grand civic open space that relates to the newly visible Ferry Building and 
waterfront, which would establish a dramatic element along the Port Walk. New 
development and improvements along the Ferry Building Waterfront should therefore seek 
to further enhance the PortWalk with connections with existing open space areas, as well 
as to new open space at Rincon Park, and new pedestrian improvements that are part of the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects. 

Restore the Ferry Building Waterfront as a major transit center by improving transit 
access and transfers among water and land transportation modes. 

The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake triggered a dramatic increase in the demand for ferry 
service to and from downtown San Francisco. Last year, commuter and recreational 
passengers made 2.8 million ferry trips, and this number is expected to grow to over 4 
million during the next decade. (See Appendix A for more information on ferries). New 
modes of waterborne transportation, including airport hovercrafts and water taxis are being 
explored. These trends indicate the need to provide more facilities and services to 
accommodate waterborne travelers. The Ferry Building Waterfront clearly is the best place 
to meet this need, a conclusion supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 
Regional Ferry Plan, which encourages coordination of ferry schedules to allow inter-ferry 
transfers at the Ferry Building. 

Further increases in ferry ridership also are likely to result from the conversion of Treasure 
Island from military to civilian use. Although reuse plans for Treasure Island are in their 
infancy, any major new uses will require creative means of transporting people to the island 
because of the Bay Bridge's limited capacity to handle more traffic flow. 

In combination with nearby BART and MUNI service, the Waterfront Transportation 
Projects, when completed, also will emphasize the important role this area plays in moving 
people in and out of the City, and up and down the waterfront. Redevelopment of the 
Ferry Building and environs should maximize convenience of connections between landside 
and waterside transportation modes. Every effort should be made to facilitate The Port 
should promote a direct, continuous transit connection line between the northern and 
southern waterfront transit lin e s and, in particular, between the F-Line and the MUNI Metro 
extension when d e mand requires and funding permits. Direct, continuous transit lines along 
The Embarcadero that do not require transfers will encourage the public to use transit rather 



IV - 34 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



than their cars. On the waterside, ferries and water taxis should connect the Ferry Building 
with other waterfront locations, including Fisherman's Wharf, Mission Bay, and Candlestick 
Park, regional airports, Treasure Island and other locations. 

• Provide efficiently planned parking and loading facilities to serve new activities in the 
area. 

The expansion of ferry operations and the provision of new means of waterborne 
transportation combined with increasing roadway congestion will, over time, divert 
automobile drivers to other modes of transit. Nevertheless, maintaining parking in the area 
is a key concern for Port tenants, and has presented a stumbling block to past efforts to 
redevelop the Ferry and Agriculture Buildings. 

Since the earthquake and demolition of The Embarcadero Freeway, the amount of off-street 
parking in the area has been significantly reduced. The economic viability of the Ferry 
Building and Agriculture Building renovations depends, at a minimum, on limited amounts 
of short-term parking for tenants and visitors, automobile drop off and pickup areas to serve 
the transportation and commercial functions of the Ferry Building, loading and unloading 
areas to serve potential retail functions in the buildings, and transportation staging areas. 
Loss of parking and loading areas may limit the Port's ability to successfully redevelop the 
Ferry and Agriculture Buildings, accommodate certain desirable uses like a public market 
and excursion boats, or successfully develop other properties in the area like Piers 1 and 3. 

Currently Pier 1 is used for parking on an interim basis. However, to facilitate the 
rejuvenation of the area, it may be beneficial to allow this parking to remain over a longer 
period of time. Although other parking solutions should be examined, permitting some 
parking in Pier 1 may prove to be the most practical, effective and aesthetic way to address 
the parking needs in the area since the Pier building encloses and screens the vehicles from 
view. 

The projected loss of waterfront parking and the need to replace it to serve existing and 
future Port activities requires a creative solution to rationalize parking in the broader area. 
This should be an objective of the mid-Embarcadero roadway design process currently 
underway. 

Physically and visually integrate the Ferry Building and environs with their spectacular 
City and Bay settings. 

After the Embarcadero Freeway was built, little attention was paid to ensuring that the 
design of facilities on each side of The Embarcadero were physically or visually connected. 
In fact, the improvements were designed to face away from the waterfront, to buffer against 
freeway noise and traffic. At the same time, the public paid little attention to the waterfront 



IV - 35 




1V-36 



as 

S3 

2 

i 



as 
>- 



a 

ss 

s 

fas 



S 

6 





























(/Ojsnpar pusosQ) 


























JOTS3 nopomaid/jptJi 3res3|oq/r\ 


























(sXfJcns) Suisnoqajf m 






UJ 


UJ 


UJ 
















(jj»I it> aw QOOTS) "ailP'J mods 




























tu 




X 

a 




UJ 


uj 


X 
UJ 


X 

uj 


X 




X 


< 


ntrejntjsyjiyL'Dsy 


< 


< 




< 


UJ 


< 


UJ 


UJ 


< 




< 


< 




< 




















































< 






01 


— 


< 


UJ 




UJ 






< 


jcsujuieusjiij 7p X|qm9STV 


< 




< 


< 


< 


< 


UJ 


UJ 


< 














< 


< 


< 




QJ 




UJ 








sssudjanrg rrooprsjssy 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 




< 




< 








Doampsni wmsproy 






< 




< 




< 




< 








(saoiAj»s) uopruodsnux 






< 




< 


< 


UJ 


< 


< 






BJ 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 








saprrp'd XjrannnncQ 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 




< 




< 












< 


< 


< 


< 




< 




< 








93td$ usdo 


< 




< 




< 


CJ 




UJ 




UJ 


< 


UJ 


















Um 










SOtyQ SUILlLTTpSJ 








BJ 


BJ 




UJ 




UJ 








jirdsy drq5 


























uoddn^ 3ujuut}\ 




< 


< 


uj 


< 










































pSfltpy-oSjeQ 
































< 




< 




< 




< 


< 


< 




JUILpj3y [CTUOUi3J3^J ^ AJEJUQuaSJ^ 






BJ 








< 




< 








sdiqs oucrisi}-! 




< 


bj 




< 




< 




< 














< 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 




< 




DO!SjroT3 TP s j 




BJ 


qj 




BJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


< 








Xnsnpu] Sanjnj 


























NOTE KEY: 

A » Acceptable Use 

E - Existing Acceptable Use IS/ 

E/I - Existing Use/May Continue 

As Interim Use 
X ~ Accessory Use 
(E/X - Existing Accessory Use) 
( ) « Proposed Revision 


«*) 
m 

s 

M 

V 

W 


■o 

a 

u 

JC 
JM 

3 
CD 

<rv 
u 


r-i 

u 

ft 


y 

JC 
JM 

3 
CQ 

:S 

y 

'£1 


u 

£ 


u 


M 

E 

'5 

CO 

| 
y 
u. 


a 

<« 

Ck. 

ST 
%t 
u. 

r* 

y 
S 


Agriculture Building 


u 
•o 

2 

V 

E 

e 

c 


Rincon Pirk (Future) Seawall Lou 327. 348 


1/1 

z 
* 

aa 

V 

to 

£ 

c 

3 
y 



2. 

-3 



B. 

i 
3 



o 
U 

•z 
o 
c 



c -5 



i - ^ 
It. 

Q s ; 

o u c 

f .E - 



■ c u 

i s I 



— - 3 

s " r 

_ k. M 

I «2 iS 

1 Sjj 

"2 E = 
c e — 

" e 

c - i 

t O -3 

2 u ? 



C JZ 
m — 



V 



J5 ? -S 3 =^ 



- - H r 



* 2 S 
^ <^ -5 



E 3 



S 3 = 



■B Ii *J S 

?1 - a 1 

1*1 o £ 

I i - 5 1 

W aj *" 



s. - 

< = 



a. a 



2 

i » I 

V — 

a _f i 

§ I? 

.t- E -a 



M S S a 



*1 

m 

t n 
| J 

?! 



; c J c s 

n i s r 

y V c C 

J If 



e - 

* 9 

"3 ■ 

■S v 

c Z 



u2 

e 
< 



= 5 



2 C 



c 
U 



— c 



e E 
— o 



3 £ 



IL c 

e : 



s £ 2 
• 2 



E - 

2 - 
5 ~ 

3 w 



x_ - 

c z. 
S c 



C c 

5 £ 

w B 

• w 

BJ w 

■ I 

". c 

1 e 

; ? 

o a 

w i 

1? e 



— «x ^\ v v <C 



IV-37 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



facilities because they were not seen from the other side of The Embarcadero. Now that 
the Freeway is gone, special consideration should be given to urban design features that are 
in keeping with and enhance the historic maritime character and architectural value of the 
waterfront facilities, and that reconnect the Ferry Building area to the City and the Bay. 
Public views from, through, and around the Ferry Building should provide new 
opportunities to observe maritime activities and the Bay. 

Pursue a mix of public and private resources to achieve an appropriate quality and mix 
of uses. 

In general, San Francisco's downtown is an active, mixed use environment that hosts a 
range of activities and services for downtown employees and residents. Yet for the most 
part, Port properties in the area have not enhanced or benefitted from this setting. 
Demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway and construction of the planned roadway 
improvements have stimulated public and private sector interest in restoration of this area. 
The Ferry Building area therefore offers perhaps the best opportunity on the waterfront for 
a successful public and private partnership to provide new public amenities, jobs and other 
benefits to the Port, the City and the region. The high costs of historic renovation will 
require a creative financing approach if the Ferry Building and environs are to offer a large 
public component that will attract people to the waterfront. In the Ferry Building itself, 
there should be a mix of public and commercial uses to ensure the market and financial 
feasibility of this critical renovation project. 

Standards for Mixed Use Opportunity Areas N e w Development 

Ferry Building Mixed Use Opportunity Area: The Ferry Building Opportunity Area 
extends from Pier 5 to the Agriculture Building and includes Seawall Lot 351, the Pier 5 
bulkhead building, Piers 1/2, 1, VA and 3, the Ferry Building, the Agriculture Building, 
and Ferry Plaza. The Opportunity Area also includes the area in front of the Ferry 
Building, which currently is the subject of a planning effort for a new plaza. The Ferry 
Building, the focal point of the Opportunity Area, survived both the 1906 and 1989 
earthquakes, but sustained damage in the 1989 earthquake. Seismic repairs and upgrades 
costing more than $4.0 million are currently underway, and are being funded by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Furthermore, the Port has secured 
approximately $2.1 million to date in federal and state grants to do conceptual design and 
feasibility studies, complete environmental review and begin final design on renovation of 
the Building. The Port also has secured $9.2 million for modernization of ferry landing 
facilities. Because the conceptual design of this important project already is underway, 
many development standards are provided herein to reflect the comments that have been 
expressed to date regarding the role the Ferry Building area should play in the revitalization 
of the waterfront. 



IV - 38 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



General Development Standards for the Opportunity Area 

• Carefully locate any recreational boating activities to avoid navigation and 
operational conflicts with waterborne transportation. 

• Promote activities in and around Pier 1 and 3 that enhance, complement and 
benefit from the existing uses in the area and the transportation-related 
functions planned for the Ferry Building. 

• Consider reuse plans for Treasure Island, if available, and related transit 
needs in the development of the Ferry Building area. 

• Require that any commercial recreation facilities will be available to the 
public. While free facilities arc preferred, pay as you go facilities also arc 
permissibl e . {Note: Replaced by General Land Use Policies in Chapter 3, 
page III- 19, General Policy 11. J 

• Carefully design freight service areas for new uses so that they are 
compatible with the transportation network. 

• Limit accessory parking to that which is necessary Maximize efficient use of 
new and existing parking to serve existing businesses, further activate the 
Ferry and Agriculture Buildings, and stimulate reuse of Piers 1 and 3. and 
th e bulkh e ad buildings. 

• Any pier parking should be hidden from view, perhaps in or behind 
structures, and should not interfere with access to or enjoyment of the 
waterfront. 

• Encourage cafes along The Embarcadero to take advantage of afternoon sun 
on north side of The Embarcadero. 

• Consider reconfiguring existing deck areas north and south of the Fern 
Building to allow restaurant patrons, pedestrians and passersby to view 
maritime activities and the Bay. 

• The design of new development should respect the character of the Golden 
Gateway project, the Ferry Building and the mid-Embarcadero open space 
improvements, once designed. 

• The design of new development should minimize the perceived barrier of the 
new Embarcadero Roadway and encourage a pleasant pedestrian connection 
between the City and waterfront. 



IV - 39 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



• Determine whether to preserve the Piers 1, VA, 3 and 5 bulkhead buildings, 
or to remove one or all of them and/or the small building north of Pier 3 to 
improve visual and physical access to the waterfront. 

• Extend a waterside PortWalk from Pier 1 to the Promenade, where it would 
not interfere with ferry and excursion operations. 

• Provide new uses near Pier 7 to take advantage of and further activate the 
Pier 7 public access and fishing pier. 

• Design and locate the mid-Embarcadero open space to reflect and enhance 
the grandeur of the Ferry Building as the focal point, and reconnect The 
Embarcadero with the Market Street Corridor. 

• If feasible, design the mid-Embarcadero open space improvements to allow 
for future undergrounding of The Embarcadero in front of the Ferry 
Building, if funding becomes available. 

• Explore the possibility of obtaining economic value from Seawall Lot 351 by 
combining it with the adjacent Golden Gateway residential site to provide 
expanded opportunities for mixed residential and commercial development. 

Additional Development Standards for the Ferry Building 

• Restore the exterior Embarcadero facade with historically accurate of the 
Ferry Building, using building materials that maintain and/or restore the 
historic character and architectural integrity of the structure. 

• Restore the historic grand, sky lighted gallery on the second level as the 
principal public space, to the extent possible. 

• Encourage placement in the Building of exhibition space for historic or civic 
displays, such as the California Relief Map, or Port history, Ferry Building 
or San Francisco exhibits . or original structural elements. 

• Create a central, public foyer in the Building, that provides dramatic views 
and connections to the Bay and the ferries. 

• Give preference to public uses on the first floor. 

• Make activities available at different price levels to encourage full use and 
enjoyment by all segments of the. public. 



IV -40 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



• Provide protection from inclement weather for ferry riders. 

• Provide a water taxi stop where feasible. 

• If possible, uses in the Building, including offices, should relate to a unique 
thematic concept such as maritime activities, world trade and diplomacy, 
transportation and travel, or San Francisco and California cultural, business 
or artistic activities, or some combination thereof. 

• Incorporate accessory retail uses to meet the needs of downtown workers, 
ferry riders and visitors, such as ticket offices, cash machines, travel offices, 
other personal services, and recreational equipment vendors. 

• Allow theme retail and festival uses such as public and fish markets, as well 
as restaurants and other eating and drinking establishments. 

• Avoid conventional shopping center or tourist-oriented retail uses. 

• Consider moving the Port's offices to Pi e rs 1 or 3 to make room for revenue- 
generating uses on the upper floors of the Ferry Building if this helps to 
support the costs of renovation. 

• Consider adding a fourth floor to the Bay side of the building, consistent with 
earlier historic design guidelines, if necessary to increase revenue to support 
the expense of historic renovation. 

• Determine the feasibility of opening the tower for paid public tours. 

• Encourage public donations to help finance components of the Ferry Building 
restoration. 

Steuart Street Mixed Use Opportunity Area 

The Steuart Street Opportunity Area is comprised of Seawall Lots 347N and 347S on either 
side of Howard Street, and Steuart Street south of Howard, which will be closed as soon 
as The Embarcadero Roadway is rerouted around the site of the Rincon Park Open Space. 
This site will be separated from the Bay by the future Rincon Park and The Embarcadero 
Roadway and offers an excellent opportunity for revenue-generating commercial uses 
because that is the primary land use in the area. 



IV - 41 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



Development Standards: 

• Future use of the site should relate to adjacent development north of Steuart 
Street as well as to Rincon Park. Under current discussion with the 
Redevelopment Agency is the use of the site as open space related to a 
proposed office development north of Steuart Street. Absent the proposed 
development, encourage revenue generating commercial uses on this site. 

• Design new development on the site so that it does not block view corridors 
down Steuart Street. 

Standards for Other Existing or New Open Spaces and Public Access 

Areas 

Rincon Park 

When funding becomes available, Rincon Park will become a new City park in the 
burgeoning south of Market waterfront area, with breathtaking views of the Bay 
Bridge and Treasure Island. The Park will be created by realigning The 
Embarcadero onto Steuart Street between Howard and Harrison Streets as part of the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects. 

The Park site, which will be made up of portions of Seawall Lots 327 and 348, 
former Beltline Railroad right-of-way and former Folsom Street and Embarcadero 
right-of-way, is located within the Rincon Point Redevelopment Project Area, and 
comprises over 4Vi acres of Port property. 

The Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Plan, approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in 1980, expressly permits a restaurant at Rincon Park. The exact 
location and type of restaurant have yet to be determined, but the restaurant is 
expected to be compatible with its waterfront location. The restaurant will provide 
commercial activity and food service in the park. These activities will generate 
ground lease rental revenues to partially compensate the Port for the costs associated 
with conversion of this property into a public park. 

Development Standards: 

• While a restaurant is the preferred primary retail use for the site, consider 
other retail opportunities that ar e e qually effective in may generate financial 
support for the Park and other Port activities. 



IV - 42 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Ferry Building Waterfront 



Design the Park to appeal both to residents and downtown office employees. 

Design the park and restaurant to relate to its waterfront location, enhance 
the existing Promenade and Ferry Building area and provide views of the Bay 
Bridge. 



AC/fj/I:draftpln.3\Msir-Ch4 



IV - 43 



SOUTH BEACH /CHINA BASIN WATERFRONT 



The South Beach/China Basin Waterfront extends from Pier 22 Vi, just north of the Bay 
Bridge, to Mariposa Street, south of China Basin. 

Objectives For The South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 

Preserve and rationalize existing industrial maritime activities in the area. 

Historically the South Beach/China Basin Waterfront was dominated by maritime and 
industrial uses and railroad terminals. At one time, break-bulk cargo was handled on 17 
finger piers. When container cargo shipping transformed the shipping industry, however, 
these break-bulk finger piers became obsolete for most maritime commerce. (See Appendix 
A.) 

Over the past 20 years, most of the pier facilities have deteriorated, and three piers (Piers 
24, 34, and 64) have been condemned. However, several of these piers still host industrial 
maritime activities on a regular basis: 1) Pier 22 x h is occupied by Fire Engine Station #9, 
where the Fireboats Guardian and Phoenix is are docked; 2) portions of Piers 26 and 38 are 
used by maritime support services divers and underwater construction services and 
emergency spill cleaning services; 3) Pier 46B is the location of the Port maintenance 
operations, as well as berthing and service area for tug and tow vessels; Pier 48 is a cargo 
warehouse and maintenance facility for ferry boats 5) Pier 50 is a ship repair facility and 
cargo warehouse for coffee; and 6) Pier 54 also is a maritime support facility providing tug 
and tow services as well as seasonal fishing operations. In addition, portions of Pier 28 are 
temporarily used for fish handling operations, pending completion of the Pier 45 Earthquake 
Repair Project in Fisherman's Wharf in 1995, and Piers 30-32 is a key temporary and 
layover berth facility. 

In spite of the general decline of the industrial maritime industry in the area, these 
remaining operations continue to provide important services to maritime activities in San 
Francisco and the region. Since most of the maritime operations north of China Basin do 
not conflict with the emerging residential and commercial uses in South Beach and Rincon 
Hill, they should be retained. By consolidating these activities in a rational manner, 
however, and thus utilizing facilities more efficiently, these maritime operations will 
command greater prominence and enhance neighborhood character by providing visual 
points of interest that reflect the area's history. 

South of China Basin, Piers 48, 50 and 54 will continue to function as important maritime 
facilities. This is reflected in the Mission Bay Plan, which designates approximately six 
acres adjacent to Piers 48 and 50 as backland for cargo or other maritime operations. The 
backland area also provides a buffer zone to separate the maritime activities from the open 
space, residential and commercial uses that will eventually be developed in Mission Bay. 



IV -44 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



Preserve and improve Existing Maritime Uses that provide focal points for public 
enjoyment of commercial - and recreation-oriented maritime activities. 

The South Beach/China Basin area currently includes two waterfront recreation areas. One 
is the South Beach Harbor at Pier 40, a 700 berth marina for recreational boaters built in 
1986 by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Construction of the marina, which 
required the demolition of former Piers 42, 44 and 46A, has stimulated the conversion of 
the broader area to a mixed-use residential neighborhood. The Harbor is therefore vital to 
the neighborhood, as well as the regional boating community. 

The other recreational area is the Port's shoreline property east of Terry Francois Boulevard 
(formerly China Basin Street) which was not included in the Mission Bay Plan. This stretch 
of land, extending south of Piers 48 and 50 to the San Francisco Boatworks at Mariposa 
Street, includes maritime support operations at Pier 54, a public boat launch adjacent to Pier 
52, and Agua Vista Park towards its southern end. Most of the area, except Pier 54, is 
used by recreational boaters and water enthusiasts. Much of this boating activity is centered 
at the public boat launch near Pier 52, which also is the location for the Bay View and 
Mariposa boat clubs. In spite of a high demand for low-cost access to the Bay, this boat 
launch is the only one in San Francisco, and it is in a state of disrepair that has greatly 
limited its use. The City recently obtained a $300,000 grant to repair this facility. In 
addition, further improvements such as boating services and supplies, bait shop and 
convenience food and other services should be developed to maximize public enjoyment of 
this facility. 

Promote activities and public access to make the waterfront inviting and safe, and improve 
the living environment of the new and emerging Rincon Hill, South Beach and Mission 
Bay neighborhoods. 

Although the piers have changed little, the adjacent uplands (including two Port sites) arc 
being dramatically transformed. Most visible is the development of the South Beach 
neighborhood by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. This redevelopment effort, 
which is nearing completion, will ultimately include 2000(?) 2500 residential units, with 
accessory retail and commercial services, and 12 acres of open space in addition to the 
South of Beach Harbor marina. Three Port parcels included in this project area have been 
developed for affordable housing: Delancey Street developed a rehabilitation center on 
Seawall Lots 331 and 332, and Bridge Housing developed low and moderate income family 
units on Seawall Lot 333 in the Steam Boat Point Apartments. 

In 1984, the Redevelopment Agency entered into a master lease with the Port of San 
Francisco to incorporate the Port's seawall lots and Piers 40, 42, 44 and 46A for South 
Beach Harbor into the Redevelopment project. In addition, the Redevelopment Ageno has 



IV - 45 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



an option to lease Seawall lots 335 and part of 336 to develop the proposed South Beach 
Park. Upon completion of the full redevelopment project, the improved properties will 
revert back to Port control. 

The redevelopment of South Beach has spurred additional residential and commercial 
development on privately owned parcels in the Rincon Hill area to the north. The renovated 
Hills Plaza office and residential complex, and Portside condominiums are the newest 
improvements, both of which offer breathtaking views of the Bay and the Bay Bridge. The 
Portside developer also proposes to lease| Seawall lot 329, adjacent to the project, which 
will be landscaped and improved as an outdoor seating area for a cafe, and a publicly 
accessible open space. 

The other major land use change upland of the Port is the development of Mission Bay. 
Under an agreement between the City, the Port and Catellus Development Corporation, this 
300+ acre site will be converted over 25 years to a new mixed-use waterfront 
neighborhood. The plans entails 8,500 residential units, retail and light industrial activities, 
hotel and 67 acres of open space located south of China Basin Channel. Approximately 4 
million square feet of new general offices will be concentrated north of China Basin 
Channel, next to the existing China Basin office complex. Approximately 20 acres of 
Mission Bay's shoreline parks and open space will be located on Port property. 

With the introduction of a significant new residential population in the South Beach/China 
Basin area, public attention is now focused on improving the piers and shoreline. Residents 
and employees in the area should be able to enjoy the benefits of living and working along 
the waterfront in an environment that is safe and inviting. The deteriorated condition of the 
piers and general lack of activity do not foster that feeling of security and, in fact, tend to 
create a physical and aesthetic barrier to public enjoyment of the waterfront. As piers are 
upgraded, new activities and accompanying public access improvements should welcome 
people to the waterside, and complement the developments occurring inland. 

Take advantage of the areas proximity to downtown San Francisco by providing attractions 
for the general public, while respecting the needs of adjacent residents. 

Collectively, the stunning views of the Bay Bridge, proximity to downtown, and emerging 
new residential and commercial neighborhoods provide a powerful catalyst for re vital ization 
of the numerous waterfront facilities in this area. This waterfront revitalization will be 
further stimulated by the pedestrian, roadway and transit improvement constructed as part 
of the Waterfront Transportation Projects. The MUNI Metro Extension will connect this 
area to downtown, as well as increase opportunities to extend public transit further into the 
southeast sector of the City. 



IV - 46 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



In recent years, the Port has attempted two different mixed-use developments in this area. 
The Sailing Center Project, proposed for the Rincon Piers (Piers 24, 26 and Seawall Lot 
328) included a 100 berth marina, a hotel, retail activities, public assembly facilities and 
• significant public access areas designed for hosting international sailboat races and 
exhibitions. Unlike the South Beach Harbor, which is a permanent docking facility for 
private vessels, the Sailing Center marina was proposed as a space for sailing events 
intended to attract throngs of spectators and water sport enthusiasts to the Bay. Design 
work for the project was underway when Proposition H was passed, banning hotels on piers. 
Without the hotel, the project had no means for financing the marina and public amenities 
and was therefore abandoned. 

The Scandinavia Center proposal for the Bryant Street Pier area (Pier 30-32 and Seawall Lot 
330) included a new cruise terminal, a hotel and exhibition hall, specialty retail activities 
and extensively landscaped public access improvements. This project, which was revised 
to conform to Proposition H by relocating the hotel from the pier to the seawall lot, 
ultimately failed for lack of financing during the recent economic recession. 

While these projects were not built, the project proposals illustrate the attractiveness of this 
area for significant new mixed-use projects that include exciting new maritime activities for 
the enjoyment of the City and region. However, the potential for new activities on Port 
property that have city-wide and regional appeal must be balanced with the needs of the 
emerging inland resident population. Development of the seawall lots will play a key role 
in providing a transition zone between waterside attractions and neighborhood activities. 
The Port should maintain open communication with local residents and businesses to create 
development opportunities that also incorporate neighborhood serving features. 

Create an integrated series of public access improvements that extend a shoreline 
PortWalk through the area, and provide a unifying pedestrian connection behveen South 
Beach and Mission Bay at China Basin Channel. 

New mixed-use developments on Port property should include public access features that 
connect with and expand the system of pedestrian improvements and open spaces that are 
under construction or planned in the area. Once the Waterfront Transportation Projects arc 
completed, and the Rincon Hill and South Beach neighborhoods become firmly established, 
extension of the public access over the water on the piers should follow. There are many 
public access features that are already in the area, the proposed Rincon Point Park to the 
north, the South Beach Harbor and public fishing pier at the mouth of China Basin Channel, 
the landmark Lefty O'Doul Bridge over the Channel at Third Street, and the planned 
Mission Bay shoreline parks and recreational boating activities south of the Channel New 
mixed-use projects on the piers should provide a PortWalk that creates a meandering 
shoreline path, incorporating existing and new public access features. Severely deteriorated 



IV - 47 

































(XjJSnpUJ [EJ3U3Q) 




























1 


J3JU33 UOQOOlQJd/SpEJX 3lBS3|0Ujft 










< 








< 












(3811101s) 2msnoq3JE/^ 






X 

a 










X 


X 
UJ 








UJ 




jo ae«3 oooTr) S3 P!n 3B d mods 


























• 

< 


• 

< 








X 


U 


X 




< 


X 


X 


UJ 


X 


LU 


< 


< 




< 


< 


LU 




uj 


< 


< 




< 


UJ 






< 


< 
















< 






UJ 






< 




sjaoH 














< 












< 




191 33'JJO 






u 


















u 


UJ 




juscaurejjsing Xiqiusssy 




< 


< 




< 




< 












< 


< 








< 










< 


< 










UJ 


sjsudjsiug fEruonEaJ35'y 






< 




< 
















< 


< 


nopnjpsni oroispEOV 






























(S30I-VJS5) UODBlJOdsUBJJ[ 








































< 




















sspifpBj Xirunuiui03 










a 










UJ 










suinssn^ 


< 


< 


< 




< 






< 


< 




< 




< 


< 


SDEdg usdo 


< 


< 






< 


uj 












< 


< 


< 


SS3MV onqry 


< 


< 


< 




< 


u 




< 


< 




UJ 




< 


< 


33i_yO 3innuE^\ 






u 




< 






< 


< 




UJ 


UJ 


< 


UJ 


JiEdsy ding 






























jjoddnj sujulib^ 






u 




< 






< 






UJ 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 


3Siru3 










< 




















p3iB13y-o3jE3 






























ssfi J3jB/^ 7p 8uuBog [wjonBajDsy 






< 












< 




UJ 








Sunpjsg ]Binoai3J33 XJEJodui3j_ 






uj 
















UJ 






< 


sdrqj ouoisipj 






< 




< 


















< 






< 


< 




< 






< 


< 




< 






< 


uoisjrmg 7 /ojsj 






ui 




< 






< 


< 




UJ 






< 


Xnsnpu] 3mqsij 






LU 
























NOTE KEY: 

A = Acceptable Use 

E = Existing Acceptable Use ISI 

Ell = Existing Use/May Continue 

As Interim Use 
X = Accessory Use 
(E/X = Existing Accessory Use) 
( ) = Proposed Revision 


u 

£ 


r< 
t' 


s 


00 

00* 
$ 
>e 

c 

U 

ft 


SWL 328 


Pier 30-32, 34 


c> 

f*> 

to 


O 

n 
SO 


-0 


a. 


00 

b. 
O 

£ 


SWUs 331. 332. 333 North & South 



•V 

0* 
■V 

b- 


s; 


to 


SWL 335. 336. Cilirans (AB 3794) 


a 

s 



c — 



- H 



UJ 

S < 

-= — 3 

*" tt « 

.2 5 6 

■5 k« a 

e £ oa 

Z '■ / * 5 

S CI o 

u > -~ 

VZ u 

H "i 

■= € & 

- — - *> 

M ti 9 

a 3 a 

O 3 " 

IS !» <» 

I I i 



■1 



r 



Q "5 



il = 

« = s 

2 u = 

— v» ■ — 

? 5 -3 

S - v- 

ill 

u O w 



U W a> 



•3 = S 
m _« 

c — 



C - - 



— > 

s- « jS 



b «2 a 

Its 

X 2 = 



-= i 5 

' »ii u - = 
r J5 5 



s u 



•= c 5 S 

"3 c 



u * < J 

c. 



— a 
-3 2 



5 i 

£• o s " " ' 

u r- 

■ W S 

1? ! I 

5- .a 2 

— ■= « 

5 * .g 

c c <• 

t ^ £ 

.> ■ 

J c u 

3 O " 
o 0- 



w* u 

5 E 

6 = 

.i 5 



.2 o 



J3 s 

o = 

■5 K 

« c ^ ^ ^ 

E ■ S Si 

a £ I ^ a 

t? Si 
S JL o 

■ e k 

u <=- a 

P •= 0£ 



S 



o 
-3 



u — 



CL 



2 — — 5 — £ 



s — 



.2 "S 

— ea 

£ E 
c = 
= u 

& o 



c "2 

o .£ 

E UJ 

c . 
u 

C < 



L. ^ 



IV-50 



as 

s 

3 
I 

a 
s 

a. 

b 



































BJ 
















UJ 


< 


< 
































(33uojs) ftnsnoqaxe^ 






















u 


< 




(999\ jo OOO'rc) WI!^ suodj 




































g 










u 


S 


u 


< 


X 






UJ 




<• 




<- 




UJ 


UJ 








UJ 


























































in I a"*iIT*i/"\ rp t *>n-^r> 
/if/ •* , y-HJ l k - iWU ^J 








UJ 




















in^l KITTfW *T1! *"*-T TO /lO TTT ^CC"V/ 




























c!3nSi*\3n n^n rw 




























sssudisicrg feuouEaJDsy 




























nopniQSU] onnspBoy 




























(S33IAJ3S) nODEUOdSTTElJ, 




























J31Q33 JC0IS1y\ 




























ssarfioEj Xiiuiiiuiuo^) 




















UJ 








smnasnj^ 




































<; 








UJ 












SS330V OIIQU^ 


< 


UJ 




UJ 


< 


< 


< 


UJ 


UJ~ 














UJ 






UJ 






















UJ 
















2" 








uoddng sarpLTE^ 


UJ 


UJ 




UJ 


UJ 


CJ 








UJ 


tu 






sstaQ 
































UJ 






UJ 


UJ 








UJ 


UJ 






3S{"1 J3ib/j\ Tg ScroEog rroooEajoiy 








uj 




UJ 




UJ 










UJ 


Sanpjsg [Eiuocoajs^) *y 'Cr&iodmsj, 




UJ 








UJ 






















































UJ 


















aoisjrorg Ausj 




uj 






u 


















Xosnpa] 8uiip>y 










UJ 
















UJ 


NOTE KEY: 

A = Acceptable Use 

E = Existing Acceptable Use ISI 

E/I = Existing Use/May Continue 

As Interim Use 
X = Accessory Use 
(E/X = Existing Accessory Use) 
( ) = Proposed Revision 


<N 

>o 

V 


o 

oo 

00* 

u 

£ 


Mission Bay Walerfront: 


(Pier 50tt, 52. Facility 265) 


T 

<r> 

«> 
— 


? 

*o 
II 

£1 


3 

£ 


3 

CL 


I 

■s 

1 
1 

1 

A 
P 

c 

fNJj 

o 

t- 

u 
m 

U. 


r-» 
m 


i 

on 


on 


-«r 

3c 

on 

s 

B 



< 



5 
o 
u 
*2 

3 
00 



.2 -5 



c 

— 

a 

D 

2 
•t 



r 

o 



r= -S 



c: ,«i 

e m 

C c 

u £ - 

■S K 
>^ "I 

u c 

1.1 
11 

il 

o .2 

oo H- 

c 'C 

2 -S 

c a 

o i- 

•- £ 

■3 C 

■ _*5 

c a. 



u 

u 

= e 



ii " c j= 

a 2 -= r 



= -3 



c — 

■i -a 



s «2 if 

S - 9 

£ — 



% = a 

Z *> 

w» e- *« 
1* C 

5 to 

= £ H 

a! I 

— i o 



4 



2 .= = » 



c 
< 



E -5 
- E 



1 



_ c 

a a 

c _ 



3 c 

— v 

u u 

. c 



■ H *> c 



C — 
II 



3 -C 

^ £ 



I 2 
I f. 

1 i 



* 5 E 



5 C 

3 C 



a u 

il 



1 I 



a*a ■ 

u a g 

v o o 

Br u 

5 5 "8 

III 



3 £• 

a. c 
iJ i 



1 ^ 

E ■ 

2 o 
a S 
s S 



z 
1 



3 

u 

a - 

51 



o 

c 



3 "3 
« 4! 



I « * 

3 X 
w U - 



; 2« 



u 3 C 

3 C 

« Si c 

u 3 w 



t "3 



O . 



~ - 

1 = 1 

9 « u 

8 - -p 



3 



2 *a 



i ■ 

c c 

3 ■ • 

I 2 

a c 

^ £ C 

1 2 : 



J | 

[ii 

si ? 

I s 

Hi 



— rx ^ <n <o 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



or condemned piers such as Piers 34 and 36 should also be removed. The resulting 
improvements in shoreline appearance will complete the transformation of the area to a new 
urban neighborhood. 

Establish high standards in the design of new development that give rise to a new 
architectural identity for the shoreline north of China Basin Channel. 

The deteriorated state of many of the pier facilities in the area combined with the haphazard 
mix of building styles embodied in the remaining sheds give rise to new opportunities for 
a new architectural identity to complement the South Beach neighborhood improvements. 
While the Pier 26, 28 and 38 bulkhead buildings have been recognized by the Foundation 
for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage as notable historic and architectural resources, 
there is a need to re-establish an architectural presence along the rest of the shoreline. 
Efforts should be made to adapt the historic bulkhead buildings into new pier uses, if 
feasible and unless otherwise indicated by the urban design and historic preservation 
guidelines that are recommended in this Plan, and complement them with high quality 
design in new structures on other piers. 

Land Use Standards for New Development Mixed Use Opportunity 

Areas 



The Rincon Pier Mixed Use Opportunity Area 

The Rincon Pier Mixed Use Opportunity Area includes Piers 22 V2, 24, 26, 28 and Seawall 
lot 328 (Assessor's Block 3769). This cluster of sites is located under the Bay Bridge, 
between downtown San Francisco and the Rincon Hill and South Beach residential 
neighborhoods. Activities in this Opportunity Area will be enhanced by the proposed 
Rincon Park to the north. The Fireboats Phoenix and Guardian fir e station at Pier 22 Vi, 
add further attractions to the area that could become more of a focal point through careful 
attention to design. Piers 26 and 28 therefore provide excellent opportunities for 
entertainment activities to serve the general public, nearby local residents and downtown 
employees, as well as recreation services (e.g., bike and skate rentals) to people enjoying 
the Park and Promenade. These piers could also house a fireboat museum that would 
complement the fireboat station. 

The potential for developing entertainment activities on these piers would be significantly 
enhanced if a current proposal to build a sports arena in Rincon Hill is realized. The 
presence of such a facility, located two blocks inland, would draw thousands of people to 
the area especially during evenings, making this segment of the waterfront a natural location 
for dining and other night-time attractions. These reuse opportunities should also include 



IV - 52 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



Pier 24 which is currently condemned. The site provides sweeping views of downtown at 
the edge of Rincon Park, which could be enjoyed if a portion of the pier were retained. 

In spite of the potential reuse opportunities for these piers, a number of pending 
transportation and land use decisions have direct implications for the future of these 
facilities. As a result of the Loma Prieta earthquake, the network of freeway ramps that 
connected the Bay Bridge to the Embarcadero Freeway and City street system, known as 
the Terminal Separator, were demolished. The City's decision about how and where to 
replace the Terminal Separator will affect traffic flow in this vicinity and the development 
potential of Piers 26 and 28. In addition, some of the ramp replacement alternatives could 
result in significant new land uses on property that was formerly occupied by the ramps. 
Until these City-wide planning issues are resolved, final decisions regarding the long-term 
reuse of Piers 26 and 28 should be delayed. In the meantime, interim uses for these two 
facilities would th e r e for e b e appropriat e should be encouraged to provide some near-term 
revenue for the Port, including In the short term, Piers 26 and 2 8 qIso should continued 
to be available for maritime support uses to the maximum feasible extent, which currently 
occupy limit e d portions of the piers. Recent public access improvements as part of the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects preclude intensive maritime operations on the piers. 

Development Standards: 

• Allow entertainment and recreational activities on Piers 26 and 28 and a part 
of Pier 24 (if feasible) that activate the area and provide amenities for people 
frequenting Rincon Park and The Embarcadero Promenade. New 
developments should include significant maritime waterside activities to 
e nliven the waterside and to extend a "working waterfront" south of the 
Ferry Building. 

• Remove all or part of Pier 24 to improve shoreline appearance Consider 
applying any fill credits that may arise from the total or partial removal of 
Pier 24 to other new waterfront development projects, keeping in mind that 
open views of the water are an important objective of the Waterfront Land 
Use Plan. 

• Preserve and renovate historic bulkhead buildings on Piers 26 and 28, if 
feasible, unless otherwise indicated in the comprehensive urban design and 
historic preservation guidelines that will, be prepared for the Port, as 
recommended in this Plan (See Chapter 3, p. UI-20, General Policy 13) 

• Maintain and highlight the Bay views along Harrison Street. 



IV - 53 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



• Select and design outdoor activities in a manner that resolves minimizes noise 
impacts of th e e l e vat e d nois e l e v e ls from traffic on the Bay Bridge. 

• Provide parking on Seawall Lot 328 as a facility that supports new 
development on the piers. 

• If a stadium or arena is developed in the Rincon Hill area, allow bus parking 
as an interim use in Piers 26 or 28. 

• Allow general warehouse as an interim or accessory use in Piers 26 and 28. 
Bryant Street Pier Mixed Use Opportunity Area 

This Opportunity Area includes Piers 30-32 and 34, and Seawall lot 330 (Assessor's Block 
3771). 

The 13-acre pier and three-acre seawall lot together represent the largest potential 
development site of the Port. Unlike many of the Port's piers, Piers 30-32 is supported by 
concrete piles and is thus in good structural condition. In contrast, adjacent Pier 34 is 
condemned and should be removed as part of new development on Piers 30-32. The vast 
size of Piers 30-32, which can berth 800 foot long ships on its two sides offers untold 
possibilities for providing public entertainment and attractions, with a highly visible 
maritime element. In addition, the Pier should be a highlight on the PortWalk that would 
extend the pedestrian path along The Embarcadero onto the pier. Because the site is both 
prominent and yet somewhat isolated from an architectural standpoint, new development 
here could become a new signature piece in this neighborhood, and should set a standard 
for other architectural improvements along the shoreline. 

This site has been identified as a possible location for a modern cruise terminal that could 
become viable, if market conditions and changes in regulations lift the constraints that have 
limited the number of ships calling in San Francisco. Support services such as parking and 
neighborhood-serving businesses can be incorporated into development on the seawall lot 
which also would provide a buffer zone for residents of Bay side Village. 

Development Standards: 

• Provide activities on Piers 30-32 that attract residents of the City at large and 
the region, but also include businesses that provid e goods and s e rvic e s 
oriented to the needs of cater to nearby residents and employees. 



IV - 54 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



• Due to the extraordinary size of Piers 30-32, provide significant maritime 
and public access uses together with a multi-faceted mix of commercial 
activities, all oriented around a common theme, such as family-oriented 
entertainment, or a trade and promotion center for California food and 
agricultural products, rather than a singular commercial attraction. 

• Encourage new activities that do not generate peak traffic volumes during 
commute periods, in order to minimize congestion on roadway and public 
transit systems. 

• Require a high standard of architectural design appropriate to the prominence 
of the site that also establishes a new architectural identity and standard for 
waterside development in the South Beach area. 

• Incorporate expansive public access on the piers that builds upon and 
enhances the PortWalk through the South Beach area. 

• Demolish Pier 34 and make shoreline improvements that are integrated with 
the public access and shoreline improvements for new development on Piers 
30-32. Apply Consider applying any fill credits that may arising arise from 
the pier demolition to new development projects or rehabilitation of other 
piers. 

South Beach Harbor Mixed Use Opportunity Area 

The South Beach Harbor Mixed Use Opportunity Area includes Piers 36, 38, and 40 and 
South Beach Harbor. The 700 berth harbor and 800 foot public access way is the focal 
point of the area, adding the familiar sounds of clanking white masts to the maritime 
ambience of this area. Although the Harbor is a well-utilized facility that draws market 
rates for berthing, it does not generate sufficient revenues to cover the capital 
improvements. The Redevelopment Plan addressed this deficit by designating Pier 40 for 
general office use that would produce surplus revenues to subsidize the Harbor. The Harbor 
currently requires an annual subsidy of approximately $0.8 million. 

After the Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1981, the State Attorney General ruled 
general office use to be inconsistent with the public trust. The Redevelopment Agency 
therefore is endeavoring to identify other uses that generate similar surplus revenues. The 
Agency was poised to pursue a hotel development which was precluded with the passage of 
Proposition H. Any proposed uses other than office will require an amendment to the 
Redevelopment Plan before they can be developed. 



IV - 55 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



Although in deteriorated condition, the redevelopment of Piers 36 and 38 could complement 
new uses on Pier 40 and South Beach Harbor. Pier 38 could accommodate the expansion 
of Pier 40 water-related activities, such as excursion boat operations which need better 
facilities. Other possibilities include a center for maritime support services, additional 
docking for short-term visiting boaters, or even expanded marina facilities, if revenues from 
additional commercial activities were included. In the meantime, the Redevelopment 
Agency has proposed to renovate a portion of the space in the southern portion of Pier 38 
bulkhead structure for cafe use. The long-term development potential for Pier 36 is less 
clear, due to its extremely poor condition. Since it has little, if any, utility as a maritime 
asset, demolition of the pier to make way for shoreline access improvements may best meet 
the objectives of the Waterfront Plan. 

Because of the number of more attractive piers and seawall lots in the South Beach/China 
Basin area, the time frame for potential development favors other sites before Piers 36 and 
38. As such, interim uses should be considered for these facilities to help address the Port's 
financial needs as well as maintain the structures. 

Development Standards: 

• Permit uses in Pier 40 that generate revenues to offset existing debt service 
obligations of the South Beach Harbor. 

• Permit expansion of excursion boat operations and recreational boating 
activities at Pier 38. 

• Evaluate the costs and benefits of removing Pier 36 and providing shoreline 
improvements. If determined to be feasible, consider applying any fill 
credits that may arising arise from the pier removal to other waterfront 
development projects. 

• Permit consolidation of maritime support services in Pier 38. 

• Permit interim uses on Piers 36 and 38 until long-term uses of these facilities 
can be realized. 

China Basin Mixed Use Opportunity Area 

The China Basin Mixed Use Opportunity Area, located at the mouth of China Basin 
Channel, includes Pier 46B, and Seawall lots 335 and 336 (Assessor's Block 3802). In 
addition, this Opportunity Area includes Assessor's Block 3794, a 3.5 acre site currently 
owned by Caltrans, but which the Port has the option to acquire. 



IV - 56 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



Adjacent to the South Beach Harbor and the proposed South Beach Park, and across from 
the planned Mission Bay Wetlands, this Opportunity Area enjoys an extraordinary setting. 
Situated at the confluence of the Bay and China Basin Channel, the location provides 
spectacular near and distant waterfront views of the Bay, the marina, and the landmark 
Third Street Bridge over the Channel. 

Pier 46B has for years houses the Port's maintenance and tug and tow operations, partly 

because its location affords easy access to the entire waterfront as well as a relatively 
isolated place in which to operate repair shops. However, with new open space 
improvements planned for the adjacent South Beach Park, extending public access from the 
South Beach Harbor right up to Pier 46B, these uses may no longer be appropriate for the 
location. 

This Opportunity Area lies adjacent to the existing China Basin office complex and the 
planned Mission Bay office corridor along the new King Boulevard, which will provide 
direct access to 1-280 and be served by the MUNI Metro extension. New uses here should 
provide critical links between the South Beach and Mission Bay neighborhoods, areas south 
of China Basin Channel. With such excellent transportation access, development in this 
Opportunity Area could take many forms, providing activities that have citywide and 
regional draw. For example, this Opportunity Area has been proposed as a site for a new 
arena (with a maximum of 22,000 scats), although an arena would require an exception to 
the 40 foot height limit for this area. 

In the past, the question of whether to develop a ballpark at this or another City location has 
been the subject of considerable controversy among San Franciscans. The most recent vote 
on this matter, held just after the Loma Prieta earthquake in November 1989, failed by less 
than one percent of the voters. Similarly , there were many different opinions among 
Advisory Board members about the acceptability of a ballpark on Port property. When the 
Advisory Board considered a ballpark, it was as a stand-alone facility located entirely on 
Port property. Subsequently, a proposal has been made to incorporate an arena and a 
ballpark in a mixed use sports and/or entertainment complex that may span property owned 
by the Port and property owned by Catellus Development Corporation. Such a mixed use 
project was not specifically considered by the Advisory Board. 

In light of these facts, the Port believes that the decision whether to allow a ballpark, or any 
portion of a ballpark, on Port property in this Opportunity Area should be postponed until 
the proponents have had the opportunity to complete their proposal for a new sports anaVor 
entertainment complex, and the public and affected regulatory agencies have had the 
opportunity to determine whether it is acceptable. 



IV - 57 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



A ballpark, like an arena, would require an exception to the 40 foot height limit for this 
area. Regardless of the ultimate use of this area, the desire to create an exciting waterfront 
activity center must be balanced with the need to maintain a comfortable living environment 
for the residents in South Beach. 

Development Standards: 

• Locate possible residential and/or commercial uses |n along the inland side 
of Pi e r 4 6B, Seawall Lot 336 and (Assessor's Block 3802H inland of Pier 
463, leaving the waterside area available for commercial and maritime 
attractions, and public access improvements. 

• Permit operation of excursion boats and water taxies, and other vessels *nd 
boat r e ntals a t Pier 46B, which would complement in addition to recreational 
boating activities in South Beach Harbor, as long as wave action or wakes 
provided that, if the Mission Bay Wetlands is developed on the south side of 
China Basin Channel, these new maritime uses comply with all applicable 
environmental regulations to avoid any significant detrimental water quality 
impacts on the wetlands, are not harmful or destructive to the Mission Bay 
Wetlands . 

• Design the South Beach Park so that it enhances the visibility of the South 
Beach Harbor and public access pier, and also includes amenities targeted 
towards South Beach residents, such as children's play areas. 

• Ensure that final design of the South Beach Park provides an adequate 
number of access points for new development in this Opportunity Area, 
particularly on Pier 46B. 

• Where feasible, provide PortWalk public access improvements as part of any 
major new development projects that to connect the South Beach Harbor and 
proposed South Beach Park with waterside access through the Pier 46B site 
and over the Third Street Bridge, thereby providing a link with the future 
Mission Bay open space network and implementing the regional Bay Trail. 

• Continue to accommodate docking for tug and tow vessels at Pier 46B. 

• In Design n e w d e v e lopm e nt, minimiz e shading and wind acc e l e ration impacts 
en- buildings near the proposed South Beach Park to protect the open space 
from shadows and wind impacts to the extent feasible. Ensure that any wind 



IV - 58 



* 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



impacts of new structures do not preclude generate strong wind impacts, 
endangering the safe docking of boats in the South Beach Harbor. 

• If an arena is proposed, amend the height limit to accommodate the structure. 
Incorporate significant public access improvements, and other activities that 
serve patrons and enliven the area during non-event periods. Minimize 
parking requirements by Encouraging providing public and group transit 
where feasible. Locate any parking away from the water and maximize 
shared use arrangements with surrounding parking resources in the vicinity. 
Generate fair market revenue return to the Port. 

• A ballpark may be an acceptable land use option for Pier 46B, Seawall lots 
335 and 336, and Assessor's Block 3794 (if acquired by the Port) if the Port 
Commission determines the development of this use is in the best interest of 
the Port, and this use is approved by San Francisco voters at an election, the 
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the California State 
Lands Commission, which is responsible for ensuring that the Port's use of 
property is consistent with the public trust grant from the State (the Burton 
Act). If a ballpark is proposed, amend the existing height limit to 
accommodate the structure and include the following in the project- 1) site 
design, public access improvements and architectural treatments which are 
oriented to the Bay ; 2) a transportation plan that includes, but is not limited 
to, incentives to maximize use of public and group transit, in order to 
minimize parking requirements; and a parking program that maximizes 
shared use arrangements with parking operators in the vicinity and which 
locates any new parking areas away from the water; and 3) a compensation 
package acceptable to the Pott Commission that ensures a fair market return 
to the Port for this use of its property. 

Standards for Other Existing Maritime or Maritime Expansion Sites 

Areas 

Piers 48, 50 and 54 
Development Standards: 

• Continue to make these facilities available for cargo-related and ship repair 
operations, as well as for seasonal berthing and servicing of fishing vessels 



IV - 59 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



• Allow maritime support operations that may serve a number of other 
maritime and water-dependent operations, such as tug and tow operations, 
temporary and layover berthing, storage space, and a public water taxi stop. 

Mission Bay Waterfront (Pier 52 to Mariposa Street, except Pier 54) 

Development Standards: 

• Repair the public boat launch near Pier 52 and return it to full service as 
soon as possible. 

• Provide shoreline improvements, where feasible, to support expanded 
recreational boating and water activities between Pier 50 and the San 
Francisco Boatworks near Mariposa Street, including possible reuse of Pier 
52, adjacent to the public boat launch, for a new small boat hoist, temporary 
storage, or other support services for the recreational boating community. 

• Permit ancillary services and activities, such as boat clubs, a bait shop, 
convenience retail and food services, to both enhance the enjoyment of the 
area for water sport and other recreation enthusiasts and the future Mission 
Bay population, as well as generate enough revenue to maintain the boat 
launch and public access improvements. 

• Provid e Accommodate expanded boat trailer parking areas coordinated with 
|| the design of the Mission Bay waterfront open space on the west side of 
Terry Francois Boulevard. 

• Permit existing small restaurants and office buildings to remain in operation, 
as they provide services to employees and visitors, and increase security in 
the area. 

• Maintain the and expand small boat repair and services such as dry storage 
and boating supplies to the extent possible. 

• Remove Pier 64. Consider applying any fill credits that may arise from this 
removal to new development projects in the area. 



IV - 60 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: South Beach/China Basin Waterfront 



Standards for Other Existing or New Open Spaces Sites and Public 

Access 

Mission Bay 

Development Standards: 

• Address the parking needs of recreational boaters in the design of the 
Mission Bay open space near the Pier 52 public boat launch. 

Agua Vista Park 

Development Standards: 

• Encourage improvements to enhance the passive recreational features of this 
park. 



DYO/fj/L:DRAFTPLN.3\Mstr-Ch4 



IV - 61 



THE SOUTHERN WATERFRONT 



The majority of the Port's industrial maritime uses are concentrated in the southern 
waterfront, which extends from Mariposa Street to India Basin. 

Objectives for the Southern Waterfront 
Maximize the utilization of existing cargo terminal facilities. 

The Port has two modern, deep-water cargo terminals located at Piers 80 and 94/96, and 
is the only Northern California port with on-dock rail facilities for intermodal cargo. Both 
terminals primarily handle container cargo, but have the capability for break-bulk, roll-on- 
roll-off, container freight station operations (stuffing and unstuffing of containers) and 
transloading (transfer of cargo from one mode to another, e.g. from ship to rail). The Port 
recently invested approximately $7 million in yard improvements at Pier 80 to increase yard 
capacity and throughput, including underground utilities, refrigerated cargo spaces and 
improved storage area to accommodate transtainers. Recent improvements to the South 
Terminal (Piers 94/96) include a new entrance gate to expedite the documentation of cargo 
receipt and delivery and a 17-foot extension to each of the two container cargo cranes to 
accommodate larger ships. 

Despite these improvements, both of the Port's container terminals arc operating Qt well 
below capacity the Port's container terminal facilities currently operate at approximately 
13% of capacity because of declining cargo shipping activity. (See Chapter 1 and 
Appendix A). Evergreen, the Port's largest shipping line, will terminate its lease in July 
1995, at which time the terminals will operate at approximately 2% of capacity. While 
many of the factors leading to this decline are beyond the control of the Port, creative 
marketing could help to increase the utilization of existing cargo facilities. For example, 
the Port intends to offer long-term preferential assignments of its container terminals to 
selected ocean carriers. Historically, no one carrier has controlled either of the Port's two 
container terminals. Rather, stevedore companies have competed for the right to operate 
the terminals as public facilities for a combination of ocean carriers. The dedicated terminal 
strategy offers a better quality of operation to shipping lines. In addition, marketing may 
be directed toward smaller shipping lines that serve the regional market and do not 
necessarily carry ship-to-rail intermodal cargo. San Francisco can offer high quality service 
to smaller carriers that transport cargo by truck that often are displaced from large, more 
congested terminals (such as Oakland and Los Angeles) that cater to ship-to-rail intermodal 
shipping lines. 

Pursue financing mechanisms to develop competitively priced maritime support facilities 
in the southern waterfront. 

Although the Port's cargo operations are concentrated in the southern waterfront, three piers 
in the northeast waterfront (Piers 15-17, 19-23, and 27-29) continue to function exclusively 



IV - 62 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



as cargo-related facilities. These warehouses, constructed long ago, are attractive mere 
affordable to cargo related businesses than would a newly constructed industrial warehouse 
building and, therefore, arc affordable to cargo-related businesses which typically seek low 
cost facilities in less urban locations. The retention of warehouse facilities for cargo-related 
activities in San Francisco is an important factor in maintaining and expanding cargo 
shipping at the Port, p roximity of these warehouses to the Port's container terminals is 
critical to maintaining and expanding cargo shipping in San Francisco. Over time, however, 
land use trends and limitations on dredging may call for the consolidation of cargo-related 
activities south of China Basin, however there arc no comparable facilities available to 
receive the existing cargo related businesses in the southern waterfront. The Port will strive 
to provide comparable facilities in the southern waterfront to accommodate any necessary 
maritime support facilities that may be relocated from Piers 15-17, 19-23 and 27-29. 
Although there is a great deal of underutilized or vacant space in the southern waterfront, 
creative financing mechanisms may be required to attract these and other cargo-related 
businesses to the southern waterfront at prices they can afford. 

Maximize the productivity of Port assets through interim use of property reserved for 
maritime expansion. 

Most of the Port's properties in the southern waterfront have long been reserved for future 
expansion of maritime operations such as cargo shipping, cargo support services, and ship 
repair. These areas are identified as "Maritime Expansion" Areas sites and include 
backlands at adjacent to Pier 70, the Western Pacific Railyard adjacent to Pier 80. back land 
property at Pier 90 and backlands adjacent to Pier 94-96 (a portion of Seawall Lots 344 and 
352). and Seawall Lot 35 4 along the south side of Islais Creek. Despite the recent decline 
in shipping operations at the Port of San Francisco, container cargo business in the Ba\ 
Area is on the rise. Continued reservation of the Maritime Expansion Areas will provide 
ample space to allow the enable Port to be responsive respond to the projected long-term 
growth trend in the industry in the Bay Area, while pursuing solutions to a variety of issues 
that currently impede the maximum utilization of the existing terminal facilities. In the 
meantime, because the existing maritime facilities terminals are not fully utilized, these 
Maritime Expansion Areas remain unimproved, attracting vagrants and illegal dumping. 
Given the uncertain time frame for full utilization of the Port's container terminals and ilk- 
general decline of the ship repair industry, interim uses on these sites would help the Port 
generate revenues, provide industrial property not readily available in San Francisco, as well 
as provide a means of policing and maintaining these properties until they are needed for 
maritime expansion. 



Under the current policies of the BCDC/MTC Regional Seaport Plan, which is undergoing 
an update and amendment process, BCDC typically restricts interim uses to five years oi 
less. Given the Port's long-term outlook for expansion of container terminal space, and tin- 
fact that most interim uses on undeveloped sites would require some capital improvements, 



IV - 63 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



longer leases will be may be necessary. Longer leases for the Maritime Expansion Areas 
would allow the Port to rent facilities to established businesses that have the resources to 
maintain a stable presence in the area and comply with environmental standards, and Longer 
leas e t e rm s- also may elicit additional revenues and will provid e additional revenue to 
support other Port priorities. Interim use policies in the Seaport Plan therefore should be 
reviewed and amended, as necessary, to allow longer lease terms. 

Interim uses of a shorter term would continue to be appropriate for vacant or underutilized 
facilities within Existing Maritime Areas such as the improved existing container terminals 
faciliti e s at Piers 80 and 94/96. 

Portions of Pier 70 and Seawall Lot 352 are Class III landfill sites and are subject to closure 
requirements by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board"). 
Interim land uses are restricted to those that will have no effects on ground water and 
surface water quality or have the engineering controls in place to prevent significant 
impacts. These requirements will affect the cost and timing of converting these properties 
into productive assets for the Port. Close coordination with the Regional Board will 
facilitate the timely availability closure of these landfill sites. 

Development of non-maritime land uses that would be beneficial to the Port and 
compatible with maritime activities should be considered in areas that are surplus to long 
term maritime needs. 

While interim leasing will better utilize property that is reserved for possible growth in San 
Francisco's maritime industries, opportunities for other long-term uses on Port property may 
arise that should be considered and weighed against the merits of land banking. 

Studies conducted for the current BCDC/MTC Seaport Plan amendment process have 
concluded that the existing or potential cargo terminal facilities at Piers 48* 50, 70, 80 and 
94-96 are sufficient to accommodate the amount of cargo shipping business anticipated to 
occur at the Port of San Francisco through the year 2020. This conclusion has been 
corroborated by the Port' s own market research indicating that the existing terminal capacity 
south of China Basin Channel exceeds the amount necessary to accommodate future 
anticipated cargo business. As a result, three sites in the Southern Waterfront have been 
identified mat are surplus to cargo shipping needs and can be used for non-maritime 
activities, without interfering with existing terminal and intermodal/freight rail (ship-to- 
rail/truck transport) operations, or their ability to accommodate future projected growth in 
cargo activity. 

On e such proposal is for a co g e n e ration pow e r plant that, if locat e d adjac e nt to. The first 
site, Seawall lot 354, is isolated from other Port property by Islais Creek to the south, and 
Third Street to the east, and therefore is less, viable as a site dedicated to the cargo industry . 



IV - 64 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Flan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



The second site is an approximately 10 acre area located away from the existing South 
Container Terminal, inland of the grain dock at Pier 90 and the liquid-bulk (tallow) facility 
at Pier 92. Preliminary conclusions of the Seaport Plan amendment process indicate that 
this site is not required to meet future needs of the cargo industry, could provide steam 
, and electrical power to th e s e maritime related facilities, while serving the primary purpose 
of providing supplem e ntal power to the City and County of San Francisco. — R e v e nu e s 
generated from this use would help the Port recov e r from recent financial setbacks in its 
maritime operations. The location chos e n for the proposed cogencration power plant is a 
good e xample of a site that is not likely to be useful for maritime purposes. Marine 
t e rminal plann e rs d e t e rmin e d in 1993 that only an additional 6 acr e s of improv e m e nts are 
needed to operate the South Terminal at maximum capacity and an additional 55 acres of 
unimproved backland property is sufficient to accommodat e a expansion of the South 
Terminal, with the addition of three new berths and storage facilities. The remaining 37 
acr e s of backland prop e rty b e hind Pi e rs 90 and 92 (on S e awall Lots 344, 352), including 
the proposed cogencration sit e are, th e refore, surplus to container shipping operations. 

The third site that is surplus to future cargo needs is the former Western Pacific rail yard 
adjacent to Pier 80 (W. P. property), an approximately 30 acre site to be acquired by the 
Port in exchange for allowing open space and residential development on Port property in 
the Mission Bay Plan project area. This Mission Bay land exchange was predicated on a 
Seaport Plan policy, now proposed for deletion, which calls for reserving land to allow 
development of two new container berths between Piers 70 and 80. BCDC and MTC have 
indicated their intent to delete this policy in light of trends in the container cargo industry, 
alternate terminal sites available in the region, the substantial impacts of Bay Fill associated 
with a Pier 70-80 expansion, and the conclusion that there currently is sufficient backland 
at Pier 80 to accommodate full potential snipping activity from the Port's existing berths. 

As a general rule, the long-term benefits of a proposed non-maritime use should be weighed 
against the added value of reserving undeveloped property for possible maritime expansion 
and its concomitant capital outlay. After accounting for the above surplus sites, the Port 
would still have approximately undeveloped 62 acres remaining, adjacent to the 76 acre 
South Container Terminal and the 17 acre intermodal container transfer (freight rail) 
facility, to accommodate cargo warehousing, maintenance and other cargo support functions. 
The opportunity to use surplus property for revenue-generating non-maritime activities will 
provide the Port with increased financial resources to help meet debt service requirements 
of past terminal mmrovements, as well as underwrite the costs of ongoing improvement and 
maintenance requirements of Port facilities. However, in any event, non-maritime 
development should not interfere with adjoining container terminal operations, including the 
existing intermodal yard. 

Promote non-maritime activities in and around the historic Union Iron Works buildings 
to facilitate the revitalization of an area that survives as an example of San Francisco's 
earliest maritime industry. 



IV - 65 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



Located a few miles from the center of San Francisco, this area was developed in the late 
1800's for maritime and other industrial businesses, with nearby residences for working- 
class families. The Union Iron Works was established at Twentieth and Illinois in 1883 for 
the building of steel steamships and men-of-war. 

Unfortunately, the total amount of ship repair opportunities has diminished greatly since the 
end of the Vietnam War (see Appendix A). As ship repair contracts have decreased, the 
number of piers dedicated to use as ship repair facilities also has decreased. San Francisco 
Drydock, which operates out of Pier 70, and Service Engineering Company (SECO), which 
operates out of Pier 50, are the only full service ship repair companies with year-round 
operations at the Port. 

San Francisco Drydock recently identified approximately 18 acres that are surplus to their 
ship repair operations, which and will b e have been removed from their license month-to 
month lease agreement with the Port. The vacated area includes three turn-of-the-century 
Union Iron Works buildings along 20th Street that have outlived their maritime function and 
are slowly deteriorating. Especially of note is the former Bethlehem Steel headquarters, a 
Beaux Arts style building at the corner of 20th and Illinois Street. The City's Landmarks 
Preservation Advisory Board has nominated these buildings as City landmarks. Renovation 
and incorporation of these buildings in a mixed-use development, consistent with the urban 
design guidelines called for in the Waterfront Plan, will preserve the industrial form of a 
by-gone era, while creating leasable space suitable to meet current market opportunities. 

A mixture of maritime and non-maritime land uses also is desirable to improve access to 
the Bay and attract people to this historic section of the City. Industrial operators surveyed 
for the South Bavshorc Issues Report complained of th e lack of s e curity in the ar e a. Thev 
also complain e d that ther e arc no amenities, such as restaurants, public access or improved 
outdoor ar e as for their employ ee s. Limited commercial uses such as restaurants and retail 
establishments would provide services for employees as well as attractions for the broader 
public and, at the same time, improve security in the area. Commercial uses in this heavily 
industrial part of the working waterfront should be designed to benefit the local maritime 
community as well as the general public. Of paramount importance, however, is the 
compatibility of any improvements with the ongoing ship repair operations. 

Reserve or improve areas that will provide opportunities for the protection of wildlife 
habitat and for passive and active recreational uses. 

The southern waterfront offers several opportunities to observe a variety of waterfowl along 
undeveloped edges of the Bay's intertidal zone. These sites also offer compelling visual 
juxtapositions of the natural bay environment against the urban and industrial forms of the 
City. 



IV - 66 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



Warm Water Cove. At the bayside terminus of 24th Street, Warm Water Cove provides 
an excellent opportunity for physical public access to the Bay. This quiet cove also provides 
an excellent opportunity for off-site visual access to the container shipping operations at Pier 
80. 

The Seaport Plan currently designates this area for potential expansion of container cargo 
operations at Pier 80, which would require major site acquisitions and the filling of Warm 
Water Cove. However this designation may is likely to be deleted in the 1994 Seaport Plan 
update, permitting the Port to invest in long-term improvements that attract people to the 
area and result in improved utility and caretaking of the property. Possible new uses 
include small boat or kayak storage and launching facilities, or limited commercial services 
for the work-day population. 

Islais Creek. Islais Creek, located south of Army Street, runs through the City's industrial 
center. Although the creek has been significantly altered by industrial development, it still 
supports a habitat for juvenile fish rearing and provides some relief from surrounding urban 
activities along with water-oriented recreational opportunities. A constituency of interested 
citizens called the Friends of Islais Creek are actively pursuing public access and 
landscaping improvements on the south bank (west of the Third Street bridge), to 
complement the landscaped public access area on the north bank (east of the bridge) which 
was created as part of the City's sewer system improvements in the 1980's. Efforts should 
be made to build upon this citizen effort by enhancing and expanding these improvements. 
For example, public access improvements planned by the City for Seawall Lot 354 will 
extend a 50-foot wide pedestrian promenade along the northern edge of the creek. 

Pier 94. The unimproved backland area in Seawall Lot 352 adjacent to Pier 94 consists of 
a large landfill area that is reserved for container terminal expansion. In the early 1970's, 
a section of the fill immediately adjacent to Pier 94 failed. As a result of that failure, 
adjacent fill material subsided, allowing tidal inundation and subsequent emergence of 
wetlands. If development of this property for interim or long-term uses causes filling of the 
wetlands, appropriate mitigation measures will be required. 

Pier 98. Pier 98 is an approximately 25-acre landfill south of the Port's container terminals 
that was developed in the early 1970's to provide new area for container terminal expansion 
and the footing for a new bridge over the Bay, the Southern Crossing. Since placement of 
the fill material, the fill has subsided in some places, resulting in tidal inundation and the 
emergence of wetland vegetation. Pier 98 now provides habitat to a variety of shorebirds 
as well as unimproved passive public access thai is primarily used for fishing 

Because the fill at Pier 98 will not be used for either of the originally intended uses, the 
Port has negotiated an agreement with BCDC to enhance the wetlands and create a passive 



IV - 67 




IV-68 



fx 

1 

g 

O 

fa 



a 

I 

I 
3 

a 

5 
ft. 



(JUT[J JSMOJ) 


















< 










(Xjasnpu] rusqsQ) 


< 


a 




< 




ta 




5 


uj 










jajnsQ aopouicu_/ 3 P u X 3[«3[oq/A 


< 






< 










< 










fsJuoic) SunnouaiiM 


< 


£7 




< 


u 


u 




S 


uT 




§ 


































Juprjrj 


X 






< 










< 






X 






< 




X 


< 


X 

3 








< 


X 




















< 
















SI310H 




























/*»/ "UJO iwaoso 


< 


— > 




< 


1 




















< 


| 
























usoSissG/isiuy 




(1/3) 




< 




















sasudisiuH praoawjM-a 


< 


























aopmpsui ormspmy 


< 


< 
























(W3i aj»s) aoaoiodsaux 




















































< 




tsnrpst-j Xinnuuujuj 


< 












cj 


< 












< 




























< 




a 








B 




< 






u 


CJ 


rssaoy oiiQ *! 


< 




a 


< 




< 


CJ 




< 






CJ 


CJ 




< 






< 


a 






< 


< 


cj 


< 






jmljra drqs 




























unddnc armTT tttai 




a 




< 


CJ 




■< 




•< 




CJ 






all ltT**\ 




























TS31W 3V-G llT^l 


< 


< 




< 


CJ 


< 


< 


oj 


< 


CJ 


u 






sen ]3f aa To ffnnvocr mnnnmv 


< 


< 








< 














ImmiM igimMiiaia^ to Aiuodma t 










a 






CJ 




a 










< 


< 










< 
















< 














< 




























< 








































NOTE KEY: 

A ■ Acceptable Use 

E - Existing Acceptable Use 151 

EJl - Exlslbig Use/May Continue 

As Interim Use 
X » Accessory Use 
(E/X - Existing Accessory Use) 
( ) - Proposed Revision 


Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Ares 


R* 
3 

1 

M 

U 

< 

c 

o 

c 
c 
u 

1 

•c 

£ 

o 
r- 

£ 


Warm Water Cove 


41 

< 

"c 

1 

a 

=> 

"3 
w 

M 

y 

M 

a. 
E 

=* 


Pier 80 


SWL 354. (354.1. Pier 84) 


bjMs Creek 


Pier 90-92 


(Cargo Way Mixed Use Opponunity Ares) 


_) 

J 

I 

2 
< 

e 

.9 
c 
1 

M 

UJ 

1 

C 

Iff 
j 

5 

a. 


Lniermodel Coniilner Tnnifer Facility (SWL 352) 


«© 

o 

5 


p 1 

s 

5 
i 

1 
i 
1 

1 
■ 

CD 

a 

1 



u — 



E 

•c 



o 

V 

2 



K 3 

M 

■ • 

u < 



-= 5£. 



5 JB «« 



1 

C 
m 

C 

a 

1 
J3 



E 

c 

u 
r 

£ 



e - 

c ^ 

~ s 



s = ^ - 

3 m C 

-a S Ji ^ 

2 c - z 

• -5 = 5 



o «= _ 



c — 

o ~c i 

7 a 



- O 

1c 



"3 e 

= o 

2 I 

II 

* o 



— - a 

— w c 2L 
Sua 

1:1 a 

■= 1 -s a 

3 * o = 
> i*Z I 

c 5 B 6> 

— i "3 „ 

5 t a € 

C o *> w 

= "3 Z 
- * — 

C Si « ? 

| 2 a = 

«4 j ii 
u P C w 

^= i s 

il^ ! 

^ 2 t 2 5 

> a I a f 

= § S 
-€i gi 

— - t w v 

= 4» js 

s = a = ! 

■ -s & j j 

• M 5 8 

" I = = a 



iL £ 

e> m 



o 

u 

a -s 



a s v = s « 



a ~ = _ 

|S li 

e -s " _ 

■ -3 - - 
« V - U 

a c z = 



= s > < 

« 3 = = 

v> u C . ~ 

S t _: _ 



I j j J 

- - = JL 

£ - - 



A W M - 
y - — 

-2 V V 



II 



n 
?= 

! 



1 1 

u Ok. 



3 i * i 

S a * ~ 

111* 

z tr m •= 

m u 

c a 

* o 

1 1 1 



c a Si = 



•2 - 

a _ 

2 3 
3 



^ ;|3 

" a _ y 

l If j 

« - E - 

I E s ° 
1 ? a s 

S >, fi _ 
S e ^ 



— - a. 



a O x 5 

1 1 ■ ; 

: » h k 

; i ■s : 

c w ^ C 

w X » 2 

^ -J ^ « _? 



3 «w w W 

y •) u ^ 

- "3 I E 
? - C i 

- ?! e g 
If I I 

■ J J I 



? "3 9 - 

I I ■ J 

* 1 5 5 1 h I = e 

||l|il2<i1l 



IV-69 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



recreation park. Although the Port has committed the funds necessary to design this open 
space, there are currently no funds to finance the actual improvements. A concentrated 
Efforts is ate being made to find other sources of funds to augment the project. One of the 
design challenges will be to provide public access improvements that do not conflict with 
the shorebird habitat. 

India Basin. Port jurisdiction includes a portion of the City and County of San Francisco's 
proposed India Basin Shoreline Park. Grassy picnic areas, small boat launching and related 
facilities are planned for the Shoreline Park. The design of the Shoreline Park should be 
coordinated with Pier 98 improvements to create contiguous access along the Bay and a 
mixture of active and passive recreational opportunities. 

Enhance the public's appreciation of the waterfront by providing greater opportunities for 
access in a manner that does not compromise the efficiency of maritime operations. 

Industrial waterfronts, especially those with historical or cultural associations, are valued 
as an important public amenity as well as a critical economic resource. Many people are 
fascinated with the movement and sheer scale of the massive ships that call upon the Port. 
Innovative means of achieving access to the industrial waterfront should be pursued, 
including "visual" access accompanied by informational displays that describe the maritime 
functions taking place. 

The area recently vacated by San Francisco Drydock adjacent to Pier 70, is an example of 
an opportunity to provide compelling visual and physical access to the working waterfront, 
provided that care is taken to ensure compatibility with the ongoing ship repair operations. 
Pier 98, Islais Creek and Warm Water Cove provide similar opportunities for public access 
to areas that have interesting natural features and/or offer unique opportunities to witness 
San Francisco's maritime industries at work. 

Standards for New Development Mixed Use Opportunity Areas 

Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area. Approximately 15 acres between 18th street and 
21st Street in the vicinity of Pier 70 have been identified as a Mixed Use Opportunity Area. 
The preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic Union Iron Works buildings in this area 
will pose a considerable challenge. Two of the structures are built of unreinforced masonry, 
requiring substantial repair and seismic re-engineering before they can be reused, and 
contain asbestos, lead and other potentially toxic substances. The cost of renovating these 
buildings would be prohibitive for maritime businesses and most public uses. Flexible 
regulations that allow non-maritime tenants to use the buildings will maximize opportunities 
to preserve the buildings. 



IV - 70 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



Development Standards 

• Permit non-maritime land uses that result in preservation and adaptive reuse 
of the Union Iron Works buildings, consistent with the urban design and 
historic preservation guidelines called for in this Plan (See Chapter 3, p. Hl- 
20, General Policy 13), and that do not preclude interfere with water- 
dependent activities or associated support services. 

• Include public access improvements extending to the water's edge in the area 
adjacent to Seawall Lot 345, in any renovation efforts of the Union Iron 
Works buildings particularly if such restoration involves additional 
development on land surrounding the structures. 

• Preserve the working waterfront's authentic maritime character by respecting 
the work-a-day qualities of the industrial setting. 

» Encourage accessory retail activities that provide services to area workers, 
as well as provide opportunities for people to better acquaint themselves with 
maritime industries in this area of the City. 

• Provide parking because of the limited transportation access to this site. 

Cogcncration Power Plant Western Pacific and Cargo Way Mixed Use Opportunity Areas. 
The Western Pacific Mixed Use Opportunity Area is adjacent to the Pier 80 North Container 
Terminal, an approximately 30 acre parcel that will be acquired by the Port in exchange for 
development of other Port property to the north pursuant to the Mission Bay Specific Plan. 
The Cargo Way Mixed Use Opportunity Area is an approximately 10-acre site located aft 
Cargo Way inland of next to the existing grain elevator between Amador and Cargo Way. 
which includes Seawall Lot 344. 1 and the majority of Seawall Lot 344. These two areas 
are surplus to the needs of the cargo shipping industry, offering an excellent s ite 
opportunities for a variety of industrial or commercial non-maritime uses that would be 
compatible with surrounding maritime-related operations, including light industrial, and 
research and development activities. The development of such uses could generate much 
needed revenues to support the Port's facilities and maritime businesses. For example, a 
recent proposal for a cogeneration power plant in the Cargo Way Opportunity Area would 
have provided inexpensive steam power to the Port's adjacent maritime tenants as a by 
product of providing propo s ed cogeneration power plant to provide supplemental power to 
PG&E's nearby Hunters Point power plant. Efforts to forge such mutually beneficial land 
uses should be encouraged. 



IV - 71 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



Development Standards 

• If a congeneration power plant is proposed in the Cargo Way Opportunity 
Area the project should include: 

§ Design should reflect the State-of-the-art design for modern power 
facilities and which should complement existing waterfront uses to the 
greatest extent possible, including the nearby 1925 brick fire station; 

Incorporate State-of-the-art environmental protection that mitigates 
emission and other impacts on resident populations, wildlife habitats 
or other sensitive receptors in the South Bayshore area; 

Public benefits that accrue to the southern waterfront must be 
negotiated to the maximum extent, including open spaces and public 
access improvements and, possibly, Possible elements may include 
public restrooms, maintenance support for Islais Creek open space 
improvements, public meeting rooms available to the public and 
parking, spaces. 

• The cogencration facility New uses in the Cargo Way Opportunity Area 
should provide support for, and avoid must not negatively negative impacts 
on, the Islais Creek public access and open space improvements, and should 
provide perman e nt s upport. 

• Ensure that any use in these Opportunity Areas the power facility does not 
preclude interfere with nearby maritime activities, including rail service 
provided in the intermodal container transfer facility to the Port. 

• Maximize the economic benefit to the Port of San Francisco from long-term 
uses in these Opportunity Areas. 

• Ensure that new uses do the power facility docs not interfere with rail service 
to the Port. 



Standards for Other Existing Maritime or Maritime Expansion Areas 

Much of the Port's property in the southern waterfront is reserved for possible maritime 
expansion, including the backland areas at Pier 90, Pier 92, and Pier 9 4 adjacent to Piers 
94-96 (Seawall Lot 352, a portion of Seawall lot 344); Western Pacific Railyard; and a 
portion of backland area at Pier 70 {Pier 68, 70 and Seawall Lot 349). Although some of 
the expansion areas would provide additions to the Port's container terminals, most of the 



IV - 72 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



areas are reserved for the development of cargo-related support services, such as 
warehousing, that typically require large facilities at low cost. 

Development Standards 

• Unimproved space or empty buildings that are not anticipated to be utilized 
for maritime purposes within the next 10-20 years should be made available 
for interim use. Lease terms of 10-20 years, and in exceptional cases 30 
years, should permit amortization of tenant improvements or construction of 
interim facilities. Particular types of interim uses suitable for the area 
include: non-maritime warehouse, manufacturing, staging activities, use of 
grain silos for materials other than grain, bio-remediation, recycling 
operations, and open air storage. Prior to entering into 20-30 year leases, 
establish a process for determining that the Port's maritime business 
opportunities would not be jeopardized. 

• Ensure that proposed interim uses are compatible with maritime and 
industrial uses in the general area, and comply with all environmental 
regulations, including those governing landfill closure sites, where applicable. 

• Develop leasing procedures for interim uses that ensure ad e quate measures 
to return property to maritime use when necessary. Ensure that longer term 
interim users fully realize that their tenure is of limited duration. Ensure that 
interim use tenants are advised and fully realize that their tenure is of limited 
duration and that the ultimate status of the property is as a Maritime 
Expansion Area reserved for maritime use. 

• Proposed interim uses at Seawall Lot 352 and Pier 70 must be compatible 
with landfill closure requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board. 

• Interim uses must not add to hazardou s material contamination and. in moM 
cases a physical barrier must be included in the design (i.e. paving, concrete * 
Abide by ail applicable environmental regulations to avoid contamination of 
soil on ground water from the on-site handling of hazardous materials. 

Standards for Other Existing and or New Open Spaces 
and Public Access Ar e as 

Warm Water Cove: 

• Develop accessory commercial or water-oriented recreation facilities, such 



IV - 73 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Han 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



as recreational boating, to improve public access to the Bay and to activate 
the park. 

• Seek funding to provide lighting, public telephones and other amenities to 
improve security of the open space. 

• During lease negotiations for properties in the vicinity of Warm Water Cove 
(Pier 70 to Pier 80), seek funding for improvements that will improve 
existing and provide new public access and open space. For example, 
improvement of the Western Pacific Railyard may provide an opportunity to 
extend the park to the south, increasing visual access to the container 
shipping operations at Pier 80. 

• Explore the possibility of enhancing flows of water to the Bay from PG&E 
to improve fishing in the area. 

• Seek funding opportunities to improve park maintenance, including cleaning 
up debris in the channel along the water's edge. 

Islais Creek: 

• Continue to assist Friends of Islais Creek in designing and implementing 
improvements to the south bank of the creek (west of the bridge) including 
native landscaping, seating areas, and possibly a boat launch and/or storage 
facility. Accessory parking spaces may be needed to serve the boat launch. 

• Design public access improvements in a manner that is compatible with re- 
configured freight rail access to the Port's container terminals. If rail access 
is re-designed, opportunities to incorporate public access along the rail right- 
of-way and creek edge should be addressed. 

• Encourage continuous public access around the west channel of Islais Creek. 



Pier 94: 

• Seek mitigation areas to compensate for fill of the wetlands at Pier 94 in 
advance of long-term maritime expansion on the site, and as soon as 
possible. 

Pier 98: 

• Determine the primary purpose of the open space, and the particular user 

IV - 74 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 4: The Southern Waterfront 



groups that will benefit from it, to ensure there will be stakeholders that will 
continue to enjoy and protect the resource. Coordinate implementation 

actions with interested community and environmental groups, and seek grant 
funds to construct and maintain the desired improvements. 

• Balance the potentially conflicting objectives of public access and habitat 
preservation during project design and environmental review. 

• Take full advantage of opportunities to view wildlife as well as maritime and 
industrial activities. 

• Provide interpretive and informational displays explaining issues such as the 
environmental benefits of wetlands, Port operations, and other activities of 
public interest. 

• Design and construct improvements to facilitate pedestrian access along the 
shorel ine that would connect PG&E's shoreline access to the proposed India 
Basin Shoreline Park. 

• Provide alternative public access along the former LASH terminal causeway 
north of Pier 98, if feasible, in a manner that avoids conflict with the 
maritime terminal facilities, in order to limit disruption to shorebird habitat 
from human access on Pier 98. 

India Basin Shoreline Park: 

• Cooperate with the City and County's Recreation and Parks Department to 
facilitate the site acquisition for India Basin Shoreline Park. 

• Coordinate open space design efforts at Pier 98 with the City and Count) 
Recreation and Parks Department to facilitate continuous pedestrian access 
along the Bay. 



KI)K/fj/I.:draftpln.3\Mslr-('h4 



IV - 75 



CHAPTERS: IMPLEMENTATION 



The Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a balanced and implementable 
land use plan for the use and development of the San Francisco waterfront. Implementation 
of the Waterfront Plan will proceed on two fronts. 

(1) The Plan's policies and objectives will be incorporated into the regulatory 
framework that governs waterfront land use through a legislative process. 

(2) Improvements on the waterfront, consistent with the Plan, will be realized 
through a site-specific development process. 

The legislative process actually began in 1990 when San Francisco voters adopted 
Proposition H, calling for preparation of a land use plan for a portion of the Port's property. 
Completion of the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan is the first milestone in that process. 
After the Waterfront Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Report is completed, the Port 
Commission can then adopt the Plan, and forward: (1) conforming amendments to the 
City's Master Plan and City Planning Code for review and action by the Planning 
Commission and (2) conforming amendments to the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission's plans and policies, for review and action by BCDC. (See Chart on p. [to be 
providedl) identifying agencies with regulatory control over Port property, and listing 
relevant planning documents and legislative authority). 

The site-specific development process can begin in earnest upon completion of the legislative 
process. However, the Port's distressed e conomic financial condition dictates that the 
proc e ss of r e alizing planned improvements economic revitaiization should begin as soon as 
possible, wherever feasible. For example, the development process could be initiated now 
for any maritime uses — and on Port land not subject to the Proposition H moratorium on 
non-maritime uses, such as the Port's seawall lots. If specific project proposals were 
initiated soon, given the long lead time required to obtain necessary land-use entitlement, 
these project proposals could receive final approval at about the same time the Waterfront 
Plan receives the final legislative approvals. 

The legislative process and the site-specific development process necessary to full) 
implement the Waterfront Land Use Plan are discussed more fully below. As these 
processes unfold and related issues are further considered, more details about 
implementation of the Waterfront Plan will become available. 

Legislative Process 

The people of San Francisco took the first step in the legislative process by enacting 
Proposition H, calling for the Port to prepare "a 'Waterfront Land Use Plan' which is 
consistent with the terms of this initiative for waterfront lands." Waterfront lands were 



V - 1 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



defined to include Port-owned piers and most of the Port-owned property within a 100 foot 
band along the shoreline from Hyde Street Pier to India Basin. The Port expanded the 
planning area to encompass all Port owned property in order to ensure a comprehensive 
program for the use and development of the City's waterfront. 

Although the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan has been prepared to meet the requirements 
of Proposition H, the Plan's policies and objectives and site-specific land use designations 
must also be embodied in the regulatory framework which now governs waterfront land use. 
In fact, the collective effect of existing state, regional and local waterfront land use 
regulations, as illustrated in Table 6, is to limit the variety of ecorjornically feasible 
development opportunities on Port property, and encourage proposals for large scale 
specialty retail centers, Regulatory constraints therefore undermine the Port's ability to seek 
the diversity of activities the public has requested during the waterfront planning process. 

The principal plans and regulations for which amendments will be proposed and considered 
include the: 

(1) Master Plan of the City and County of San Francisco; 

(2) San Francisco City Planning Code; and 

(3) Bay Conservation and Development Commission's (a) Bay Plan; (b) Special 
Area Plan; (c) Total Design Plan; (d) Seaport Plan; and (e) Regulations 

In addition, State legislation may be required to clarify BCDC's authority to permit some 
of the land uses identified in the Draft Plan, such as maritime office uses on piers, and to 
ratify Port action related to any public trust lands proposed for non-trust related uses. 

The timeline shown on p. sets forth the anticipated chronology of legislative actions. 

The precise form of the proposed amendments will be determined over the next year while 
the Environmental Impact Report is being prepared. Port staff has been conferring with 
City Planning Department staff to decide whether the form of the current Master Plan will 
be followed, essentially dividing the waterfront into three separate geographic area plans, 
(Northeast Waterfront Plan, Central Waterfront Plan, South Bay shore Plan), or if a new 
consolidated waterfront plan element should be substituted. Similarly, the Port and BCDC 
staff will work together to establish an appropriate format for necessary amendments. 

The Need for Consistent Plans and Policies for the Waterfront 

Whatever form the legislative amendments may take, the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board 
recommends that all applicable plans and policies for the waterfront should be consistent and 



o 



Q. 

2 



C 

o 



3 

DO 
0> 

w 

c 

p 



w 

c 



X 



c 
D 



0> 

D 
c 



2 * 

• • 

ec z 

c « 



JO 
3 
CO 



O 



O 



o 

Q 
O 
CD 



o 



. © 

x "3 
A. 



o 



Q. 

: £ 

Q. 



5 



o 



O 



o 

Q 
O 
m 



O 



2 



2- 
<3 



O 



■ 

CO 



O 



2 



■o 
c 



8 



•> 

■ri | 

o I 



2 E 
2 = 



«p 

e 2. 



=>-o 

■D £ 

II 



2 E 



ll 



II 



2 21 



e3 



SI 



- 

1 * 

-• E 



T3 
C 

g^ 



si 



E 



E 



— T3 

SI 



3 r 
11 



As 



it 
o 



o 



O 



O 



O 



O 



O 



o 



o 



= 8 

ii 



E C? 



-ri £ 



o 



I* 

2 E 

1- * V 



E c? 



T3 S 

SI 



E 
3 



• ■ 

E 2 

■S & 

- E 



si 



i i 

- E 



5 S. 



■a 
Ec? 



■ri £ 



it 

|Ie 

^ • CM 

2 £ > 



O 



g^ 

Ec? 



— u 
ri £ 

si 



E 
■3 



O 



c 

•0 £ 

SI 



o 



"2 > 

1 g I 

I =i = - 

• S S3 



5 <5 c? 



ri 5 

SI 



O g v 

■ cvi 
2 • > 



O 



si 



E 
□ 



o 



c 

»> 

3 



II 



O 



g ^ 

IS. 



s 

5] 
SI 



g^ 

Ec? 



ri £ 

SI 



E 
□ 



T3 B 

SI 



c 
c 

■D 

I 



ll 



li 



"D 
1 

3 



O 



c 

gt 

Ec? 



ri £ 
ll 



I 

I 



O 



O 



c 

a 

Q. 



2 

s 

Q. 
■ 

to 
c 
• 

E 

E 

8 
s 

S 

E 
r 

li 



« 

u 
9 
E 
E 

(8 



a 
1 



li o 

• • 

i 3 

W w 

>.£ 

a g 

£ ^ 

El 
o c 
- E 

• E 
^ 8 
8 2 

s a 

Sli 

121 

s s 1 

3 -C 

■o ■ m 



c 
. 3 

■ n 

• n 

S 3 

• ■ 



It 



II 

gj 
I • 

I = 

E 3 

5 "5 



c 
c 
c 

a 



T3 

c 

c 
© 

•» 

8 

S 



— •5 o Q- 



c E 

— E 

I 8 

E T3 

E i 



• c 

o 



o a 



2 O c c o 



■ i: • 

Q. c 



999 - 



n , E 



e 
o 



5 £ 

li 

2 £ 
a « 

a 

5 : 



E o 

E 
• a 

£ .2 

ll 

o S 

~ T3 



e : 

1 1 



IB £ f 



^ r a 

P o 1 



ill 

a 



- o ; a 

1 I I j 

5 s V • 

111 J 

r 3 . j{ » 

rl|l i 
11 f i 

til f 
s • — «•• 
I 



V-3 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



clearly presented, reflecting a consensus for the future use and development of the Port 
shared by all agencies with jurisdiction over the waterfront. To further this objective, the 
Board also recommends that the general principles and land use options be formulated as 
a special area plan, endorsed by the City and Port, the State Lands Commission, and BCDC 
to supersede the existing BCDC Special Area Plan for the Port area. In addition, San 
Francisco voters may also be asked to endorse the policies of the Waterfront Plan. 

A wide range of substantive issues concerning waterfront land use policy may arise during 
the legislative process. More than twelve years have passed since the last comprehensive 
planning effort was completed for the San Francisco Waterfront. Over that time period, 
changes in law, in the surrounding land uses, and in the economics of maritime industries 
have made existing planning documents obsolete in many respects. In fact, the planning 
agencies foresaw the decline in demand for pier space for industrial water-dependent uses 
over 20 years ago and called for a subsequent planning effort to identify appropriate 
replacement uses for piers along the waterfront north of China Basin Channel. (See BCDC 
Special Area Plan, p. .) 

The Waterfront Plan Advisory Board members were aware of the need for a comprehensive 
review of existing plans and policies when they decided not to be restricted by existing 
regulations in identifying appropriate land use designations for Port property. At the same 
time, the Advisory Board was conscious of the extent to which controversy over waterfront 
land use policy could hinder implementation of plan objectives. Therefore, the Draft 
Waterfront Land Use Plan contains a broad range of acceptable uses on specific Port sites, 
including provisions for interim uses, that should allow productive use of Port property 
while proposed changes in laws governing waterfront development are subject to further 
public debate. Of course, many existing land use plan objectives and policies are carried 
forward in the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan. For example, no changes are proposed in 
the waterfront height limit (generally forty feet), except for the possibility of a height 
amendment to accommodate a 22,000 - seat arena in China Basin. 

The Effect of the McAteer-Petris Act on Port Land Use 

It would not be appropriate to itemize all of the legislative amendments necessary to 
implement the Waterfront Land Use Plan policies until Port staff has had an opportunity to 
confer with the Planning Department and BCDC staffs, as well as with the public to identify 
inconsistencies between the Waterfront Plan and other planning documents. However, there 
are several substantive issues which warrant special mention because their resolution will 
require consideration of regulatory changes at the state, regional and local levels. Most of 
the issues arise from the McAteer-Petris Act, which established the Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission. BCDC has authority to permit or deny any project in or over 
the water, or within 100 feet of the shoreline,- after reviewing the project in light of 



V - 4 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



specified criteria. Much of the Port's property falls within BCDC jurisdiction. BCDC 
policies will determine the extent to which the Port will be able to maintain existing uses, 
authorize interim uses, and encourage any substantial renovation of existing pier-side 
facilities to accommodate new uses, consistent with the Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

The importance of BCDC 's role in protecting San Francisco Bay from excessive fill and in 
preserving bay waterfront for water-oriented uses can not be emphasized enough. For the 
past 25 years, BCDC regulations have protected the waterfront from massive non-maritime 
development and preserved it for water-oriented uses. Major policy changes should not be 
sought. Accordingly, much of the implementation of the Waterfront Plan should be able 
to occur with little or no change to the McAteer-Petris Act. 

However, there are issues, particularly those related to replacement piers and fill credits, 
for which the McAteer-Petris Act provides little policy guidance. BCDC staff has 
previously identified a review of the replacement pier provisions of the Bay Plan in its work 
plan. The issue is an important one for the Port because the Port has a number of existing 
facilities, including many piers that extend into the Bay, for which there is no current 
demand by water-oriented uses. The McAteer-Petris Act, which governs the reuse of these 
facilities, was enacted to address the problem of excessive new filling of the Bay for 
non-water-oriented uses, but provides little policy guidance with respect to piers that pre- 
date the Act. As discussed in Chapter 1, over the last 50 years, the demand for pier 
facilities for water-dependent uses has declined dramatically due to (1) the decline in ferry 
passenger travel, (2) the shift to containerization of cargo, (3) the rising preeminence of the 
Port of Oakland in container shipping and, most recently, (4) the planned reduction in naval 
military operations. These same forces have led to a surplus of facilities around the Bay 
which could accommodate water-dependent uses. 

For the past 25 years of this transition, the McAteer-Petris Act has governed the reuse of 
the Port's pier facilities. The McAteer-Petris Act requires any person "wishing to place fill, 
to extract materials, or to make any substantial change in use of any water, land or 
structure" to obtain a permit from BCDC if the development is "within the area of the 
Commission's jurisdiction." (Government Code §66632.) The State Attorney General's 
Office has explained that the Commission has two types of "jurisdiction": 

(1) jurisdiction over a 100-foot band abutting the Bay shoreline ("shoreline band" 
jurisdiction) where, unless the land has been designated for water-oriented 
priority land uses, the Commission may deny an application "only on the 
grounds that the project fails to provide maximum feasible public access, 
consistent with the proposed project, to the Bay and its shoreline" ('shoreline 
band' jurisdiction); and 



V - 5 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter S: Implementation 



(2) jurisdiction over the Bay itself ("bay" jurisdiction) where the Commission 
applies stricter criteria in reviewing the proposed development, among them 
the requirement that the project be "water-oriented" and that there be "no 
alternative upland location . . . available for such purpose." (See §§66605, 
66610, 66611, 66632, 66632.4.) Attorney General, Informal Opinion dated 
October 8, 1986. 

Unfortunately, the McAteer-Petris Act did not clearly define which of the two types of 
jurisdiction applied to the use and development of pre-existing pile supported structures, or 
piers, over the Bay. Through administrative interpretation, and informed by an Attorney 
General's opinion in 1970, a policy emerged whereby: 

(1) Proposed development that involves no, or routine repairs to the pier or its 
substructure would be considered under BCDC's "shoreline band" jurisdiction 
and could therefore be approved without limiting the uses supported by the 
pier to "water-oriented" uses. 

(2) Proposed development that involves the complete removal and replacement of 
a pier would fall within BCDC's "bay jurisdiction," and could be approved 
only if the new uses were those for which the Commission could authorize 
new fill (e.g., water-oriented uses), and if the project satisfied the 
"replacement pier" policies, discussed below. 

The "replacement pier" policies were adopted by BCDC a few years after the McAteer- 
Petris Act, specifically to address replacement uses for the Port of San Francisco's finger 
piers. The Bay Plan provides that if the piers deteriorate or become technologically 
obsolete for commercial shipping or other maritime purposes, then they can be removed and 
replaced with "replacement fill" subject to the following limitations: 

(1) the replacement fill would cover an area smaller than the area of the pier 
being removed; 

(2) only up to 50% of area of the pier being removed could be used for 
Bay-oriented commercial recreation or Bay-oriented public assembly, defined 
as facilities specifically designed to attract large numbers of people to enjoy 
the Bay and its shoreline, such as restaurants, specialty shops and hotels. 
{Bay Plan, p. 37.) The remainder of the replacement fill, if any, would have 
to be devoted to public recreation, open space or public access. 

Nearly 15 years after the replacement fill policy was adopted, the Attorney General's Office 
was asked for an informal opinion regarding the Commission's jurisdiction over pier 



V - 6 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



development that would require substantial repairs to the pier, but not complete 
reconstruction. In 1986, an opinion was issued, concluding that proposed development that 
involves more than routine repairs to the pier or substructure would require case-by-case 
review. If BCDC determined that the work "tends toward creation of what is essentially 
a 'new' structure, . . . one that is significantly different from what existed prior to the 
work in terms of its utility or life expectancy or the time period that will be necessary to 
amortize its overall cost," then BCDC's "bay jurisdiction" would be triggered, and the uses 
supported by the pier would have to be "water-oriented" uses. (Attorney General's Informal 
Letter Opinion, dated October 8, 1986.) 

Further Limitations on Port Land Use Arising from Interpretations of 

The McAteer-Petris Act 

The Port has struggled with the implications of this interpretation of the McAteer-Petris Act 
since it was issued. At that time, there were seven piers and bulkhead buildings, in addition 
to the Ferry Building and the Agricultural Building, that were designated for reuse, and 
which would require substantial repair or reconstruction in order to establish the uses 
identified in the Special Area Plan. (Piers 40, 24, 1, VA, 3, 33 and 35.) BCDC's Special 
Area Plan, adopted in 1975, identified uses for several of those piers that were not 
considered "water-oriented" uses, such as office or community facilities, on the assumption 
that those uses could be established without the need for complete reconstruction of a pier. 
When the Attorney General's Office interpreted the Act as extending "bay jurisdiction" to 
new development involving substantial repair to the pier structures, it became clear that the 
Special Area Plan use designations could not be realized. 

The Port was concerned because the new interpretation of the McAteer-Petris Act effectively 
prohibited maritime-related office uses, otherwise a permissible public trust use, on any 
pile-supported structure in need of substantial repair. The effect of this ruling on the Ferry 
Building, the Agricultural Building, and several bulkhead buildings was of particular 
concern because those facilities had been constructed or long used for office purposes that 
would no longer be permitted if much needed seismic retrofitting and structural repairs were 
undertaken. In addition, Port staff believed that the public would not support extensive 
development of Bay-oriented commercial recreation uses (e.g., specialty retail, restaurants 
and hotels) in those buildings, as well as on the many piers identified for reuse. Nor would 
there be market justification for extensive development of a single type of commercial use. 
Yet, under the replacement fill policy, commercial recreation was the only type of permitted 
new use that could generate sufficient revenue to carry the cost of structural and public 
access improvements to those facilities. 

In 1987, the Port initiated an amendment to the McAteer-Petris Act to allow repair 
replacement or reconstruction of the piers and pier structures, no larger than the pre-existing 



V - 7 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



pier or structure, for purposes consistent with the public trust, provided that significant 
portions of the area were devoted to public access and recreation. 

The Port withdrew its proposed amendment to the McAteer-Petris Act in the face of political 
. opposition based on a variety of objections. In the seven years since then, BCDC acted 
independently to provide an exemption from the "water-oriented" use requirements for the 
substantial repair or reconstruction of the piers supporting the Ferry Building and 
Agricultural Building. BCDC took that action because it was clear that water-oriented uses 
could not alone pay the costs associated with the historic renovation of these important 
historic structures. Whether further exemptions could be approved to allow other desirable 
waterfront improvements also to proceed remains to be resolved for all other Port property 
as part of the legislative process implementing the Waterfront Plan. As the Executive 
Director of BCDC suggested, the best and most appropriate way for the Port and City to 
address those issues is through the waterfront planning process. If the effort indicates that 
the Special Area Plan or the McAteer Petris Act should be changed in order to implement 
the Waterfront Plan, then amendments should be proposed for the public, BCDC and the 
Legislature to consider. 

Key Policy Issues to Address 

Although the amendments necessary to reconcile the Waterfront Land Use Plan and the 
Special Area Plan, or if necessary, to amend the McAteer-Petris Act to give BCDC the 
authority to approve uses consistent with the Waterfront Plan have not been drafted yet, and 
thus have not been reviewed by the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board, the following issues 
have been identified as requiring further policy development: 

(1) Adopt Policies that would facilitate removal of condemned piers by creating 
an economic incentive, possibly by allowing transferred development rights 
or another legislatively sanctioned fill credit concept, or through a mitigation 
measure credit for dredge spoil disposal. 

(2) Adopt Policies that would encourage interim use of Port facilities, recognizing 
that full implementation of the Waterfront Land Use Plan could take 20 years, 
or more, and that interim uses of perhaps 5 years or less (in general, with 
special exceptions allowed) along the northern waterfront, and up to 20 or 30 
years on the southern waterfront would contribute to the vitality of the 
waterfront while also allowing for longer range goals to be realized as time 
and money permit. 

(3) Adopt Policies that would allow and encourage retrofitting pier structures in 
current use with seismic safety improvements. Because such improvements 



V - 8 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



could be construed to trigger BCDC's "bay jurisdiction," the improvements 
could not occur if the uses on the pier or in the bulkhead building are not 
water-oriented. Thus, current policy discourages life safety improvements to 
facilities that are vulnerable to seismic failure. 

(4) Adopt Policies that would encourage mixed-use development on piers no 
longer needed exclusively for water-dependent uses. The Waterfront Land 
Use Plan has identified Mixed-Use Opportunity Areas that include a number 
of those piers. However, BCDC's replacement fill policy contemplates only 
Bay-oriented commercial recreation, public assembly and public recreation as 
replacement uses. A policy that would allow other uses, consistent with the 
public trust doctrine, could result in potentially more vital and economically 
viable mixed-use development. For example, a pier reuse project that 
maintained the existing office uses in the bulkhead building, incorporated 
water-dependent uses such as excursion boats or transient boat docks on the 
pier apron, and integrated commercial recreation and public assembly uses 
with public access and recreation, would provide an alternative to the 
commercial-recreation model contemplated in the current replacement fill 
policy. Although BCDC may have authority to approve such a mixed-use 
project, the uncertainty resulting from the lack of an explicit policy tends to 
deter investors. 

(5) Adopt Policies clarifying the level of pier or substructure repair that would 
require BCDC to impose the "water-oriented" use limitations. Because BCDC 
does not, under current rules, review a project until after all local approvals 
are obtained, the position that each project must be examined on a case-by - 
case basis interjects too much uncertainty at a very late point in the 
development process. It is unreasonable to expect investors to incur expensive 
pre-development costs (for an environmental impact report, architectural and 
engineering fees, local permit fees, etc.) without knowing with certainty that 
BCDC has the authority to approve the proposed uses. 

In addition, it is not clear if or how the replacement pier policy would apply 
where the pier structure would not be removed. For example, if Scoma s 
restaurant required substantial substructural repairs, under the replacement 
pier policy 50% of the restaurant would have to be converted to public 
recreation. The replacement pier policy was not designed to rat i ona ll y 
address that this type of situation. 



(6) Adopt Policies that clarify the rules applicable to non-conforming uses that 
pre-date the McAteer-Petris Act. An argument can be made that the Act 
"grandfathered" such uses. If not, further clarification is required to address 



V - 9 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



the conditions under which those uses can continue or intensify or if the use 
is to be terminated, what the appropriate amortization period should be for 
investments in those uses. 

(7) Adopt Revisions to the Seaport Plan, as part of the current Seaport Plan 
review process, that reflect changes related to the potential future supply of 
marine terminal facilities, including the availability of former military base 
property, consolidation of commercial shipping lines and technological 
changes that enhance efficient space utilization. 

Although there are many reasons why Port waterside facilities have deteriorated, the policies 
embodied in the McAteer-Petris Act may be the primary determinant of the future use and 
development of the Port. The State government clearly has the priority of preserving the 
waterfront long term for water-oriented and maritime uses. The State government also has 
an interest in establishing a coherent policy for the effective reuse of facilities on public 
trust lands which the Port manages on behalf of all of the people of the State. Th e r e is a 
need for New land use policies te must be formulated that which distinguish between uses 
appropriate to facilities that pre-date the McAteer-Petris Act and uses that would justify new 
fill in the Bay. 

Other Legislative Issues 

In addition to substantive policy issues stemming from the McAteer-Petris Act, there are a 
number of other issues that will receive special attention during the legislative process of 
implementing the Waterfront Land Use Plan. For example, although the Draft Waterfront 
Land Use Plan provides for flexibility in the siting of a range of acceptable uses, the siting 
of certain large scale uses on Port property, such as an arena, would require additional 
legislative action at the local level to amend the height limit. In general, the policy of the 
Waterfront Plan is to keep the present height limits in order to protect bay views from hills 
and buildings and to avoid the effect of closing off the Bay with large structures. 

State legislative action also may be required in order to implement certain acceptable 
non-maritime uses id e ntifi e d or allow long-term interim uses proposed in the Draft 
Waterfront Land Use Plan. For example, uses such as residential or general office have 
been identified as appropriate uses on certain seawall lot sites. Under the Burton Act, the 
Port Commission was delegated authority to declare such property "surplus" to the needs 
of the public trust, and lease it, for a period not to exceed 66 years, for "the purposes of 
such development and use as the Commission finds to be in the public interest." (Burton 
Act, Calif. Statutes 1968, Ch 1333, as amended by Statutes 1975, Ch. 422, Section 3, Subd. 
6.) However, in the context of the South Beach-Rincon Point Redevelopment program, the 
State Lands Commission questioned the validity of the Burton Act's legislative delegation 
to the Port Commission. In order to ensure that the State would recognize the leases 



V - 10 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



entered into for affordable housing developments in the event that the trust grant to the City 
was revoked, State Lands Commission approval of the lease was required. (Public 
Resources Code §6701 et seq .) Therefore, in order to allow the project to proceed in a 
timely fashion, the Port acceded to State Lands' demand that the State Legislature be asked 
to specifically authorize the non-trust residential use of the property declared surplus to 
public trust needs. 

This same issue would likely arise with respect to implementation of any non-trust use of 
Port property. Consequently, State legislative action, either to reaffirm and clarify the 
original intent of the Burton Act or, if necessary, to specifically authorize a lease for 
non-trust purposes, will likely be required to implement the Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

The legislative actions necessary to implement the Waterfront Land Use Plan cannot be 
approved until the Waterfront Plan Environmental Impact Report is completed. However, 
in the intervening months, the work of drafting technical amendments and formulating 
policy revisions will be underway. Public hearings before City Boards and Commissions, 
as well as BCDC, can be held to ensure that all issues and concerns are addressed in the 
final Waterfront Land Use Plan and related implementing and regulatory amendments. At 
the same time, work can begin to reform the site-specific development process, and to 
initiate specific project proposals. 

Site-Specific Development Process 

Implementation of the Waterfront Land Use Plan requires legislative action to incorporate 
the Plan's policies and objectives into the existing regulatory framework, as well as a 
well-managed site-specific development process for major development projects through 
which new land uses and improvements can be realized. The Waterfront Plan Advisor) 
Board desires determined that plan implementation should accomplish the following 
objectives: 

Implementation Policies 

Implementation Objectives . The implementation structure for the Port's Waterfront 
Land Use Plan should be designed to meet the following objectives: 

(1) On a broad policy level, the Plan's implementation should (1) maintain and, 
where necessary, improve and expand and meet maritime facilities to meet the 
current and future needs of maritime activities, (2) satisfy public 
access and environmental concerns, and (3) enhance the financial stability of 
the Port. 



V - 11 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



(2) The Plan's implementation should ensure that project development is effected 
on a quality basis, attracting Bay Area residents and other visitors to the 
waterfront. 

(3) The implementation process should streamline and simplify the legal 
compliance process by establishing consistency among all relevant waterfront 
plans and regulations, thus encouraging developers to undertake projects. 
Maximum early coordination with regulatory and permitting agencies (e.g., 
State Lands Commission, BCDC, City Planning Commission) should be 
effected for each proposed project and development. This is not meant to 
imply reducing or eliminating environmental protection of the Bay. 

(4) The Plan and Plan policies should be administered and applied with maximum 
feasible continuity and uniformity (relatively free of political influences). 



(5) The implementation process should seek to obtain broad community support 
and maximize public input and community outreach. 

(6) The implementation process should provide affirmative action to minorities 
and women and encourage business and employment opportunities for all 
segments of San Francisco's diverse cultural and ethnic community. In 
addition, the Port should adopt a policy whereby San Francisco residents are 
given priority hiring preference. 

(7) A standing advisory body comprised of maritime experts and industry 
representatives should be appointed to concentrate on a strategy to promote 
and support maritime business. 

In the past, the process by which projects were selected and implemented often has fallen 
short of the objectives outlined above. First, there have been insufficient opportunities for 
formal public input at the inception of the development project concept. Second, there has 
been inadequate coordination on design review and use guidelines at an early stage in the 
process among local, regional and state agencies with jurisdiction over the waterfront. 
Third, the process has been lengthy and complex, leading to costly delays that make 
waterfront development a high risk venture. All of these deficiencies will be improved by 
achieving consensus through the legislative process on a balanced and implementable land 
use plan. However, there are recommendations for reforming the site-specific development 
process that will further the objective of improving and streamlining the process by which 
new waterfront improvements receive entitlement. The flow chart on p. 11a in Table 7 
outlines the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board's recommendations for improving the 
site-specific development process. 



■ 

V - 12 



I 

1 



TABLE 7: 

WATERFRONT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 



1. Identify area or site to be developed 
and proposed development concepts 
(Port Commission) 



r 



2. Conduct Development Feasibility Analysis 

• Identify market & financial opportunities and constraints 

• Identify physical site opportunities and constraints 

^ • Seek community input. Re: use and development concerns 

• Initial consultation w/ Planning Dept., BCDC & other agencies as applicable 

• Consider urban design guidelines applicable to site and vicinity. 



| ADVISORY GROUP 

U Members selected by Port to 
• provide input throughout 
implementation process. 
Members include; 
Waterfront Plan Advisory 
Board Members 
Other Community 
^representatives. 



3. Refine development concept(s) 
(there may be alternate plans) 



Port Commission approves 
RFP/RFQ process 



4. Issue RFP or RFQ to identify qualified developers, 
or select developer, respectively; interviews 



5. Refine Development Project 



Port Commission selects 
developer at Public Hearing 



5A. Start environmental 
review process 
(if required) 



5B. Interagency 
Review, coordinated by 
Port Planning Staff 



6. Define Preferred Development Project & complete pre-devclopmcnt design 



7A. Community Input 
regarding design & develop- 
ment requirements 



7B. Coordinated Design Review Process (by 
Port's design review panel, coordinating with 
BCDC, Planning Dept , <fc other agency 
design reviews). 



X 



8. Approvals 



Advisory Group meetings would be open to the public 

V-13 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



In order to achieve the objectives for implementation of the Plan as set forth above, the 
Advisory Board recommended changes to the site-specific development process. The 
principal recommendations include: 



(1) Establish an advisory group for major projects to provide input and guidance 
at an early stage in the process when the feasibility of alternative development 
concepts is analyzed, thereby encouraging community participation and input 
prior to identifying a development concept. 

(2) The Port should select community representatives and other qualified 
individuals to serve as part of the advisory group, as appropriate for the site 
and project concept under consideration. The size of the group should reflect 
the importance or complexity of the project. Waterfront Plan Advisory Board 
members should be included where appropriate to offer their expertise and 
provide continuity with the planning process, and to benefit from their 
e xp e rtis e . 

(3) The Port and the — advisory group should actively encourag e community 

participation and input prior to identifying a developm e nt concept(s) so that 
th e f e asibility analysis consid e rs community conc e rns. [Merged w/( 1 ) above] . 

(3) Urban design policies and design guidelines should be considered in 
identifying development concepts and should be reflected in the specifications 
included in the request for proposals. 

(4) Port staff should take an active role in soliciting thorough review by the 
Planning Department, BCDC, and other agency staffs, as appropriate, when 
the feasibility of potential development concepts is being analyzed. 

(5) Th e Port Commission should hold a public hearing when it considers 
approving the issuanc e of a r e qu e st for proposals for a s pecific development 
conc e pt for a significant proj e ct, to provid e an op e n forum for important 
issues to b e aired b e fore development proposals arc prepared and submitted. 

The Fort Commissioii should provide an open forum for discussion of 
important issues related to development concepts for major projects as part of 
the public hearings held to consider approvals of request for proposals. 

(6) Requests for proposals should be broadly distributed, and an effort should be 
made to extend development opportunities to all segments of San Francisco's 
diverse cultural and ethnic communities. Consistent with federal, state and 
local laws, the Port should provide affirmative action to minorities and women 



V - 14 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



for leases, concessions, contracts, subcontracts, and other business and 
employment opportunities. Specific steps should be identified to further this 
objective. In addition, a policy should be adopted whereby San Francisco 
residents are given priority hiring preference. 

(7) Once the Port Commission selects a developer (and for larger projects enters 
into an agreement to negotiate exclusively with that developer), Port staff shaH 
should coordinate inter-agency involvement in the process of refining the 
development project program and conceptual design. 

(8) Establish a design review process that avoids reliance on sequential review by 
each agency with jurisdiction over the site, in order to 1) minimize delay and 
unnecessary expenses, and 2) ensure that the concerns of the respective 
agencies are resolved in a satisfactory manner at the earliest possible stage of 
the design process. 

(9) Consider developing a joint application for project review in order to simplify 
and unify the regulatory procedures, and expedite the approval of worthy 
projects. 

Site Plan Approval Process 

in An there arc other additional possible reform was identified in the Options For Change 
Report, that preceded this Draft Plan, thfrt which deserves further consideration: Two 
po s sibilities set forth in the report include: Streamlining the conditional use authorization 
process, and/or conducting a design review process that is i s sues should be heard separate 
from the conditional use process, to enable more uses to be permitted as of right, adding 
some certainty to the process. 

(2)Adopting development standards that apply equally in q given situation, for example 
"there must be X square feet of open public access facilities, for each X s quare feet of 
comm e rcial d e v e lopm e nt" or "Public acc e ss ar e as must b e improv e d at a cost not le ss than 
$X per s quare foot," in order to odd c e rtainty to project developm e nt cost project i ons 

In fact, the s e this concept could be integrated into a new use authorization mechanism for 
City Planning Department/Commission review. Under the current regulations, evei) 
non-maritime use on Port property north of Pier 24 is designated a "conditional use. 
requiring Planning Commission authorization determined under very general standards and 
criteria, with a possible appeal to the Board of Supervisors. This approach was adopted to 
ensure that new non-maritime uses would be subject to design review, and to provide the 
Planning Commission with authority to impose conditions on use consistent with Master 



V - 15 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



Plan policies. This approach, however, imposes a disadvantage on Port property relative 
to similarly situated property in adjacent districts. For example, new restaurants are 
classified as principal permitted uses in the C-3 district and in the South Beach-Rincon Point 
Redevelopment Area, whereas the same use on Port property, even if located wholly within 
an existing structure, requires conditional use authorization, a requirement that can add six 
months or more to the entitlement process. The additional time and uncertainty occasioned 
by this requirement increases investor risk, lowers returns on investment, and consequently 
limits the Port's ability to obtain favorable revenue terms in lease agreements. 

An alternative to consider would be to substitute a site plan approval process, reserving the 
conditional use authorization for uses that are truly exceptional in nature. Formalizing the 
design review process, as proposed above, and initiating review at an early point in concept 
development, will address many of the types of concerns currently resolved through the 
conditional use authorization process. Substituting a Planning Commission site plan 
approval requirement for substantial new projects would provide an appropriate mechanism 
for obtaining Planning Department input, while creating both certainty and, perhaps, some 
flexibility for project sponsors. This mechanism may be especially well-suited to many of 
the larger Mixed Use Opportunity Areas identified in the Waterfront Plan, where phased 
implementation of a project could best be managed through an overall site development 
program, reviewed pursuant to a site plan approval process. Of course, a reform of this sort 
will require consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission and its staff. To start 
the discussion, it is proposed that the site plan approval requirement could be imposed 
whenever any of the following circumstances arise with respect to a new development 
proposal: 

(1) Substantial modification to an existing site or structure, defined as any such 
improvement in excess of $1 million (subject to further discussion); or 

(2) Any major (to be defined) alteration to the exterior of an existing structure, 
excepting repairs or maintenance necessary to restore the structure to its 
original or pre-existing condition, or signage and awnings consistent with City 
ordinances; or 

(3) Any significant (to be defined) intensification of an existing use or change of 
use within an existing structure, if that use is not a principal permitted use 
within the nearest adjacent use district. 

As the Waterfront Land Use Plan makes its way through the legislative process, appropriate 
policies and, if necessary, legislation can be agreed upon regarding the process by which 
site-specific development or use proposals are defined, reviewed and approved. 



V - 16 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



For example, as discussed in Chapter 3 under interim uses, it will be necessary to review 
existing City Planning Code provisions governing appropriate uses in selected districts near 
Port property to refine the list of uses which, although not appropriate for long term 
development, may be established on an interim basis. Other possible City Planning Code 
revisions may be drafted to amend parking requirements, in order to allow creative 
approaches to more efficiently meet parking demand generated by land uses on Port 
property. 

State Lands Commission 

The State Lands Commission has oversight authority with respect to property subject to the 
public trust. Where the State has granted responsibilities for managing trust lands to a local 
agency, as is the case with Port property, the State Lands Commission does not usually 
become directly involved in leasing decisions for specific uses. However, State Lands 
Commission approval of a lease is required if the lessee wants to be assured that the State 
would continue to honor the lease in the event the trust grant to the local agency were 
revoked. (Public Resources Code §6701.) Approval therefore often is sought for projects 
involving a long lease term where substantial improvements are to be made to the trust 
property. 

In reviewing leases under this statute, the State Lands Commission must make the following 
determinations: 

(1) That such lease, contract, or other instrument is in accordance with the terms 
of the grant or grants under which title to the tide or submerged lands in 
question is held. 

(2) That the proceeds of such lease, contract, or other instrument shall be 
deposited in an appropriate fund expendable only for statewide purposes 
authorized by a legislative grant. 

(3) That such lease, contract, or other instrument is in the best interests of the 
State. 

If State Lands fails to make the necessary determinations within 90 days of receipt of a 
complete application for review, then, unless the time period is extended by mutual consent, 
the lease agreement is deemed approved. In some cases, State Lands review could begin 
about the same time as BCDC permit review, if BCDC review is necessary. However, it 
BCDC's final decision were to alter the lease agreement significantly, then State Lands 
review would be delayed. 



V - 17 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



This additional level of review for any significant project along the waterfront, adds 
considerably to the already lengthy and costly local and regional approval process. 
Consequently, it is critical that local agency review and approval processes be as efficient 
as possible. In addition, in light of State budget constraints and staff reductions at the State 
Lands Commission, the Port should closely monitor this State review process, and identify 
ways of minimizing delay. An additional three months or more delay in project approval, 
added to an already multi-year entitlement process, could be a deterrent to investment in 
Port projects, especially those projects that may be less profitable because they include 
important public amenities. 

Future Review of Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Whenever there is a proposal to significantly change the status quo, it is important to build 
in a subsequent review process to ensure that new problems are not merely being substituted 
for old problems. In fact, Proposition H calls for review of the Waterfront Land Use Plan 
with a report back to the Port Commission every five years to reevaluate conditions in light 
of the policies embodied in the initiative. Such a review process would also provide an 
opportunity to learn from development projects undertaken prior to that date, and to refine 
the development and entitlement process through further policy amendments or legislative 
action, if necessary. In addition, strategies for maritime industries should be re-evaluated 
at that time. In addition to the required five year Plan reviews, changes in circumstances 
or new approaches to development may warrant amendments to the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan in the interim. As for all long-range plans, ongoing review, updating and monitoring 
is an important factor in ensuring that the policies continue to be relevant and provide 
appropriate guidance for future actions. 

Financial Issues Related to Implementation of the Waterfront Plan 



Funding Sources 



As 


discussed in Chapter 1, under the Burton Act, revenues generated by the Port are to be 


used only for Port 


purposes. 


The Port receives no operating subsidies from the City . Thus, 


although the Pott 


is structured 


much like other City 


departments, it is unique in that it 


must 


discharge its 


duties 


in 


furtherance of statewide 


interests, 


and does so without monies 


from 


the City's general fond. 


And, its duties and constituents are extremely varied. 



Funding sources for Port capital projects include revenue bonds, operating revenues, 
operating fund accumulated surplus, grants, and general obligation bonds. 



V - 18 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



Revenue Bonds. Revenue Bonds, bonds secured by a pledge of net operating revenues of 
the Port, have been the Port's traditional method of financing capital projects. Revenue 
Bond financing amortizes project costs over the useful life of the project, matching cost and 
benefit. The Port currently does not have additional debt capacity, nor will it have such 
capacity in the future unless it identifies new revenue-generating uses for its property. 

The Port recently refinanced its revenue bonds, which will result in a savings of $10.6 
million over the next fifteen years beginning In FY 1994-95. The Port received $5.4 
million at the completion of the bond sale. These funds must be used for capital projects 
and expended within 2 years. 

Operating Revenues. The Port's current year's budget includes only $683,000 in facilities 
maintenance projects and does not have the capacity to include capital projects without 
eliminating other essential operating items. The fiscal year 1994/95 budget projects a 
surplus of only $300,000. The Port management is aggressively seeking increased revenue 
from current land and facilities as well as opportunities for new revenue. 

Operating Fund Accumulated Surplus. Funds are added to surplus each year when actual 
revenues exceed actual expenditures. The Port currently has only $2.1 million in its 
operating surplus account available to fund capital projects. 

The Port's Capital Plan needs are far in excess of any surplus that the Port is likely to 
accrue in the absence of new revenue-generating projects. 

Grants. Although the Port has been very successful in recent years in obtaining grants, the 
availability of grant funds is limited and the Port often must compete with City and regional 
agencies for scarce funds. Grants also usually require at least 25% in matching funds. 
Although the Port continues to seek and obtain grant funds, they are not a reliable funding 
source for capital projects. As the competition for grants gets tighter, relying on this 
"revenue" source as a means to make major capital investment decisions will become an 
even riskier and uncertain way for the Port to run its business. 

General Obligation Bonds. General obligation bonds are bonds secured by the taxing 
authority of the City & County of San Francisco. In the past, the Port has explored this 
alternative funding source with the City. The argument for the use of City tax support to 
fund Port projects is that the benefits of Port projects have a city- wide economic impact. 
On the other hand, there is long standing sentiment that the Port should be entirely self-sup- 
porting and there is little incentive to change this view because there are so many other City 
projects and priorities (schools, hospitals, libraries, etc.) for which there are limited funding 
alternatives. Today, general obligation bonds for Port purposes probably are unrealistic in 
light of the City's continuing budget shortfalls, but should be considered in the future when 
there is an improvement in the economy. 



V - 19 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



None of the Port's funding sources is likely to yield significant new capital funds in the near 
future. 

Effect of the Waterfront Plan on the Port's Finances. 

The Advisory Board, recognizing the Port's financial needs and the economic benefits it 
brings to the City and the region, decided to exercise its best efforts to develop a balanced 
and implementable Waterfront Land Use Plan that allows the Port to maintain a sound and 
diverse economic and fiscal structure, while continuing to provide for the needs of San 
Francisco's maritime industries and to provide for new public access, open space and other 
public benefit waterfront projects. 

Towards that end, the firm of Economics and Planning Systems (EPS) was hired during the 
planning process to analyze the financial and economic impacts of the mix of land uses that 
the Advisory Board considered for the waterfront. EPS produced a computer model for the 
Port that incorporates potential costs and revenues associated with different land use choices. 
The computer model provided general financial information to assist the Advisory Board in 
formulating this recommended Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan. Land uses were considered 
first on sound planning criteria, and second with an eye towards their revenue implications. 
The model provided a check to guard against a plan that may not be financially viable and 
might leave the Port in a worse financial state. 

The Advisory Board chose and studied the financial results of several land use scenarios that 
could occur under the recommended Waterfront Land Use Plan. They determined that the 
type and level of land uses that could result from the Plan would, in aggregate, be only of 
marginal f e asibility from a financial standpoint, y e t would yield significantly better financial 
results than more limited development opportunities under existing regulatory conditions, 
but such development would not likely meet all of the Port's financial requirements. As a 
result, the Advisory Board determined that, while the Waterfront Land Use Plan is a key 
component of the Port's strategy for improving the condition and enjoyment of the 
waterfront, it is not sufficient by itself to ensure the Port's future fiscal health. The 
Advisory Board concluded that the following additional strategies will be necessary to 
supplement the potential revenue benefits derived from the Waterfront Plan: 

• Identify other funding and financing mechanisms to increase the long-range 
capital reserve beyond the level already assumed in the financial model 
analyses. (Possible sources: outside funding, operational efficiencies, 
possibly General Obligation Bonds, private subscriptions to help fund public 
projects). 



■ 

V - 20 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Chapter 5: Implementation 



• Encourage the possibility of new regional or shared organizational and 
budgeting arrangements such as a regional port system, or combining the Port 
and San Francisco International Airport, recognizing that such ventures would 
need to overcome significant legal, financial and political hurdles. 

• Institute operational improvements such as improved marketing and leasing 
decisions, facility cost accounting in a computerized format (including 
revenues), including detailed programming for maintenance services. 

• Recommend against any further transfer (or attempts thereof) of Port funds 
to the City's General Fund, such as the State legislation passed in 1992. 

• Explore the ability of the Port to start retaining tax revenues (including 
property, payroll, business taxes) derived from Port tenants, and also ask the 
City for funding for open space purposes. 

The Need for a Flexible Plan 

In light of the Port's financial condition, and the rapid changes which occur in its maritime 
and non-maritime operations, an important conclusion has emerged and is reflected in the 
Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan: the Waterfront Land Use Plan should be flexible. The 
Waterfront Plan should permit a variety of appropriate uses to be located on Port properties 
that currently are underutilized or deteriorating. Such flexibility will allow the Port to more 
readily respond to market conditions and development opportunities as it balances the needs 
of existing tenancies, community concerns and management objectives. 

"Flexibility" is not meant to imply that the Port will be able to single-handedly dictate the 
rules by which waterfront land use decisions are made. Clearly, the City Planning 
Commission, Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the State Lands 
Commission will continue to review projects for compliance with their regulations. Instead, 
the Port will be able to consider a wider array of uses, predetermined to be acceptable to 
all parties, provided that they meet the Goals, Guiding Principl e s , Area Objectives, General 
Land Use Policies arid Development Standards outlined in the Plan. The objective is to 
allow the Port to more effectively manage its property than in the past, within a framework 
of streamlined and coordinated land use policies, controls and processes. 



AC/fj:L:Chapier5 



V - 21 



Appendix A 



BACKGROUND ANALYSIS FOR WATER-DEPENDENT ACTIVITIES 

A key priority of the waterfront planning process was to ensure that Port lands were first ample 
property was reserved for the existing and future land use needs of the Port's water-dependent 
activities. Water-dependent activities -those that require access to water in order to function - 
include cargo shipping, ship repair, passenger cruise, excursion boats and ferries, recreational 
boating and water use, historic ships, fishing, and temporary and ceremonial berthing. The land 
use needs of these industries were determined following a year of intensive, industry-by-industry 
evaluations and public workshops. Approximately JQ% two-thirds of the Port's properties have 
been reserved to meet the future needs of water-dependent activities. Below are brief summaries 
of these industries, taken from more detailed profiles prepared by Port staff, and from statements 
of facts and issues based on the profile reports and workshops with industrial representatives. 
These additional documents are available from the Port of San Francisco upon request. 
Following the summaries of the industries is a brief summary of dredging and its impacts on 
maritime operations at the Port of San Francisco. 

Cargo Industry 

Twenty-six years ago the "containerization" of cargo, whereby freight is pre-loaded into standard 
size boxes (as compared to "break-bulk" cargo which is freight that is made up of similar sized 
pieces loaded loosely or on palettes), began a revolution in shipping that has had dramatic 
impacts on most older waterfront cities, including San Francisco. Deregulation of transportation 
industries in the U.S. then paved the way for water, rail and motor carriers to work together in 
creating total transportation packages. The container provided an easily exchangeable 
conveyance between the different transport modes. As a result of deregulation and 
containerization, intermodal movement of international shipments has flourished during the last 
two decades. In San Francisco, these historical trends led to the shift in cargo shipping activity 
away from the break-bulk facilities on finger piers in the northern waterfront to the modern 
container facilities in the southern waterfront. 

In the future, containerized cargos are projected to further dominate San Francisco Bay Area 
maritime trade. The draft traffic forecast for the 1994 Seaport Plan update predicts over a 
four-fold increase in containerized cargo between 1990 and 2020, which accounts for 
approximately 80% of the total growth in dry cargo. At the same time, break-bulk cargo 
is projected to have little or no growth. These forecasts assume that the Bay Area will 
continue to compete successfully with other West Coast ports, especially Long Beach and 
Los Angeles. 



A - 1 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



San Francisco's share of the regional growth forecast in container cargo trade is dependent 
upon a number of variables, including shipping line operations, actions by regulatory 
agencies, availability of capital to meet infrastructure requirements, and ability to increase 
productivity at marine terminals. Although all of these variables can be influenced by the 
Port of San Francisco, few are completely within the Port's control. Some of the factors that 
will determine the future of container shipping in San Francisco include: 

• Competitive Access . By virtue of its geographical location, San Francisco does not have the 
same access to inland locations as the Port of Oakland or other East Bay ports. Cargo 
moving by truck to or from east bay locations must travel on the Bay Bridge, adding some 
time and expense as well as load limitations. Rail service is provided by only one line, 
Southern Pacific. Shipping companies have expressed a strong desire to locate where two 
or more railroads are able to provide service in order to experience the benefit of a 
competitive market for services. While the Port cannot change its location, studies are 
underway to determine what, if any, mitigating actions could be taken to make San 
Francisco more competitive with the East Bay. 

• Rail Line Access and Congestion . The Southern Pacific rail line is located on the Peninsula 
Commute Service (PCS) corridor which is owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers 
Board (JPB). This double track rail line currently handles 60 commuter trains per week day 
traveling between San Francisco and San Jose. Freight rail operations are permitted daily 
except during morning and afternoon peak commute hours. However, if both container 
cargo operations and commuter rail usage are projected to grow, conflicts will occur. 

• Double-stacked Intermodal Rail Service . The economics of intermodal service favor ports 
that have the capability to allow containers to be double stacked on rail cars directly off the 
ship, which increases the capacity of a train without adding to its length. Although the Port 
is the only Northern California port with on-dock rail facilities and an on-dock rail yard, 
commonly known as the ICTF (intermodal container transfer facility), trains from the Port 
must go through two tunnels that lack sufficient vertical clearance to accommodate double- 
stack rail cars when loaded with the tallest containers in use today. Port funds have been 
allocated for the tunnel clearance project, and final engineering work is already fifty-percent 
completed. Project implementation cannot begin until negotiations are completed with the 
Southern Pacific Railroad and the Joint Powers Board. Once these improvements to the 
tunnels are completed, San Francisco will be able to offer more competitive freight services. 

• Consolidation of Ship pin g Lines . Changes in the relationship between carriers, either by 
contract or through merger and acquisitions, to improve the frequency and efficiency of 
service could result in either large gains or large losses for the Port of San Francisco. 
Recently, the Port has experienced the loss of three small carriers which are entering into 
a joint venture arrangement. Since the Port of Richmond is more conveniently located for 
one of the shipping lines, the other two will follow. While trends toward increased volumes 
of cargo are positive, not all Ports will share equally in capturing new business. 



A - 2 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



• Preferential Assignment of Terminals to Carriers . There is a developing trend among large 
carriers to own or control their own marine terminal. Historically, no one carrier has 
controlled either of the Port's two container terminals. Rather, stevedore companies have 
competed for the right to operate the terminals as public facilities for a combination of ocean 
carriers. The Port is the only Bay Area port with the capacity in the next five years to offer 
long-term preferential assignments of its container terminal to selected ocean carriers. This 
trend offers San Francisco a marketing advantage in the near term. 

Container Terminal Facilities . The Port has two major container terminals located at Piers 80 
and 94/96. Both terminals primarily handle container cargo, but have the capability for break- 
bulk, container freight station operations (stuffing and unstuffing of containers) and transloading 
(transfer of cargo from one mode to another, e.g. between boxcar and container). In the past 
years, the Port has lost 10 container shipping lines. Among the more significant of these is the 
discontinuation of Nedlloyd's hub service between Central and South America through San 
Francisco to the Far East because it was not able to provide competitive transit times to its 
customers. The joint container service of Columbus and Blue Star Line moved to Oakland, in 
order to have all of their terminal services provided by a single company, only located in 
Oakland, in all three port regions of the West Coast. The largest of these losses, COSCO. 
intended to carry a much larger portion of intermodal cargo and found Oakland's rail access 
better suited to its needs. For similar reasons, in 1994, the Port's largest remaining cargo line, 
Evergreen, served notice of its intent also to relocate to Oakland. 

Container operations depend heavily on economies of scale. Due to the recent losses of shipping 
lines, terminal operators at both North and South Terminals have had difficulty maintaining 
profitability. In fact, Metropolitan California Stevedore Company recently was forced to cease 
container operations in Northern California, effectively closing the North Container terminal at 
Pier 80. Several smaller shipping lines were lost to other Bay area ports in the transition, 
although one small Latin American service, Maruba Line, has agreed to transfer operations to 
Pier 96. 

With only five shipping companies remaining at the Port of San Francisco, the terminal facilities 
are operating at 13% percent capacity. Operating revenues generated from cargo shipping have 
fallen from $10 million in 1990 to an expected $3 million in 1995/96. While the Port is making 
changes that it hopes will attract new business, the Port's existing terminals have sufficient 
capacity to accommodate growth in the foreseeable future. 

Ship Repair 

The ship repair industry has long been an important source of blue collar employment in the San 
Francisco Bay Area, providing high paying jobs and historic ties to the San Francisco waterfront 
and maritime industries. Over the last decade, however, the ship repair industry has stead il> 
declined, reflective of industry trends nationwide. 

In the 1960's, the ship repair industry employed some 20,000 workers at over 15 different 
companies in San Francisco. The employment base of the industry now stands at approximate!) 



A - 3 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



450 full time positions with a maximum of another 1,000 "seasonal workers" serving the 
industry in San Francisco. Most of these workers are employed by the two remaining full- 
service ship repair companies: San Francisco Drydock and Service Engineering Company. 

Two of the major reasons that are most often given for the decline for the industry are foreign 
competition and the decline in the number of active military ships. 

Foreign Competition . During the 1960's the U.S. ship repair industry grew dramatically as the 
result of repairs necessary on both military and commercial vessels. After the Vietnam War, 
in order to keep a level of combat readiness to build and repair ships, the U.S. government 
provided subsidies to ship repair companies in the United States. These subsidies were reduced 
and eventually eliminated in 1981. Most foreign countries have not followed suit, and continue 
to maintain a level of subsidy to their shipbuilding and ship repair industries. The elimination 
of subsidies by the U.S. government has put U.S. ship building and repair operations at a 
considerable disadvantage in the commercial market. 

Military Spending . With the decline of the commercial ship repair industry in the U.S., ship 
yards were forced to rely on military contracts. The downsizing of the military over the past 
twenty years, however, has led to a dramatic reduction in expenditures for ship repair work. 
In addition, major U.S. Naval facilities at Alameda and at Mare Island in Vallejo have recently 
been slated for closure, further reducing the demand for ship repair work. 

The ship repair industry in San Francisco will have to be able to attract additional commercial 
business in order to survive. For example, San Francisco Drydock began transitioning its 
business from the governmental market to the commercial market in 1987. In the last 7 years, 
it increased its percentage of commercial business from 10% to 70%. The ability to continue 
to attract this business will depend in part upon factors outside the control of individual 
companies or the Port, such as the discontinuation of subsidies provided for the industry in other 
countries. 

In response to the decline of the ship repair industry, the Board of Supervisors approved a seven 
point program in 1991 to help San Francisco ship repair companies become more competitive 
in the commercial sector. The plan recommends that the Port waive most dockage fees and 
provide rent credits to ship repair companies to fund much-needed improvements to their 
facilities. In response, the Port has reduced rents and established an employee training facility 
at Pier 70. Although the seven point survival plan represents a creative attempt by local policy- 
makers to revitalize the ship repair industry, it could have significant costs for the Port that may 
or may not be offset by higher revenues generated by the industry. 

Passenger Cruise Industry 

San Francisco's reputation as a world class tourist destination makes it a desirable port of call 
for cruise lines. Nevertheless, two important obstacles have precluded San Francisco's 
significant growth and rise to preeminence in the cruise market. First, San Francisco's central 
location on the west coast places it 1-2 sailing days further away from major cruise destinations, 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



such as Alaska and Mexico, in comparison to Southern California and Vancouver. Second, the 
U.S. Passenger Service Act prohibits foreign flagged vessels from carrying passengers between 
U:S. ports. Since the vast majority of deep sea cruise vessels are foreign flagged (only two are 
U.S. flagged) this law prevents most cruise lines from offering itineraries that would carry 
passengers one way between San Francisco and other U.S. cities along the coast. Attempts are 
underway to amend this Act to improve the competitive position of U.S. ports in this industry. 
Without it, the San Francisco's potential for growth in the traditional cruise market is limited. 
On the other hand, there are other cruise industry trends that could potentially increase the 
amount of cruise ship activity in San Francisco. A wide variety of new types of cruises are 
being considered, including "cruises to nowhere" or gambling cruises (currently prohibited by 
California, but not federal law), coastal cruises between U.S. cities and auto/ferry cruises. In 
1994, the Port will host 14 passenger lines and anticipates notable growth in revenues from 
cruise ship operations in the next few years because of more round trip cruises between San 
Francisco and Alaska. 

San Francisco's existing cruise terminal at Pier 35 provides two berths that could serve more 
than 200 ship calls per year. Recently, ship calls have averaged about 38 calls per year. How- 
ever, cruise ship forecasts from 1995 to 1999 indicate an increase of 51 (1995) to 66 (1999) calls 
per year. 

Although San Francisco has excess berthing capacity, Pier 35 has several major shortcomings 
as a cruise passenger terminal. Physical constraints due to the narrow width of the pier (200 
feet), prevent efficient ship servicing and negatively affect passenger flow when more than 1500 
passengers pass through the tenninal. Itae constraints are particularly problematic, when two 
ships are in port. Furthermore, mere is no clearly delineated passenger drop off and pickup 
area, and many cruise passenger and officials consider the terminal drab, unattractive and 
uninviting. Finally, Pier 35 needs frequent dredging to maintain water depth sufficient to 
accommodate deep draft vessels. As discussed more below, the cost of dredging is becoming 
prohibitive. In sum, cruise industry experts consider San Francisco's terminal to be inferior to 
most others in the United States. And, from the perspective of San Franciscans, the Pier 35 
terminal lacks any public access or viewing areas from which residents can safely observe the 
fascinating cruise operations. 

The trend in new cruise terminal developments has been to integrate ancillary commercial 
activities to help offset the costs of constructing and operating new terminal facilities, as well 
as provide year-round public enjoyment despite the seasonal nature of cruises. New cruise 
terminals in North America have included commercial facilities such as hotels, convention and 
conference space, retail shops, restaurants and parking garages. 

Excursion Boat Industry 

Due to the size and strength of its visitor industry, San Francisco is the center of the Bay Area 
excursion boat industry. This industry is divided into four basic types of operations dining 
cruises, sight-seeing or tourist cruises, recreational riders on commuter ferries and small 
charters. There are approximately 5 larger excursion boat companies operating in San 



A - 5 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



Francisco, along with approximately 50 small charter boats. The larger excursion boat 
companies command a total of approximately 17 vessels. The total number of excursion boat 
passengers in San Francisco last year exceeded 1.5 millon. 

Overall, the financial condition of the excursion boat industry is fairly good, despite the current 
recession. The existing large operators at the Port have seen modest increases is in sales 
volumes over the past five years. On the other hand, smaller operator's revenues have remained 
fairly flat. Most of the current operators appear to have additional capacity on their existing 
vessels, with the exception of popular recreational tours, such as trips to Alcatraz and Angel 
Island during the summer. 

However, existing excursion boat operators need additional facilities to meet current 
requirements. Locational requirements depend upon the market segment being served. 
Generally, visitor-oriented excursions should be located in Fisherman's Wharf and excursions 
oriented to convention or business groups should be near Downtown. In addition, excursion 
operations need parking, particularly for dinner cruise patrons who often return from cruises 
late at night, truck catering and loading access, and ancillary space for food preparation, storage 
and vessel repair. 

Fishing 

Fisherman's Wharf is the home of the Bay Area's fishing fleet and fish handling industry, which 
includes wholesale buying and selling of fish, fish filleting, and sorting and distribution for local 
and regional consumption. About 20 million pounds of fish ~ crab, salmon, herring, shrimp, 
squid, abalone, mackerel, halibut and sole -.- come through the Port annually, although the 
majority of fish handled at the Wharf is transported in and out by truck. A significant amount 
of fish trading occurs on Jefferson Street in the very early morning hours, before tourist 
activities take over the area. 

Although always a fairly cyclical industry, recent environmental conditions have greatly reduced 
the available fisheries resources, which in turn has greatly reduced the economic health of the 
industry. At the same time, more stringent federal sanitation and safety regulations for fish 
handling will require costly infrastructure improvements. 

The growth potential in the fishing industry varies depending on the particular activity. Fish 
handling and distribution activities of the type that occur at the Wharf have the greatest growth 
potential, especially once modernized facilities are available to the industry to help them meet 
new sanitation standards. The growth potential of the sport fishing industry is less clear, 
primarily because of the decrease in the salmon fisheries and the lack of inexpensive parking at 
the Wharf for patrons. New fishing and environmental regulations adopted with the goal of 
improving fisheries, and better marketing arid parking arrangements could help the industry 
considerably. 

In general, the fishing industry facilities at the Wharf are in poor condition. The berthing 
system was designed to serve out-dated fishing vessels and are inadequate by today's standards, 



A - 6 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



particularly in terms of accessibility, security, protection from surge and availability of parking, 
storage and support services. The fish handling facilities were either damaged by the Earthquake 
or, in the case of historic Fish Alley, were designed to meet the needs of fish handling business 
many years ago when businesses operated on a much smaller scale. 

The Port, with the active support of the fishing industry and the Fisherman's Wharf community, 
initiated the "Seafood Center Project" to meet the physical infrastructure needs of the fishing 
industry, including new berthing and modernized fish handling space. New fish handling 
facilities on Pier 45 are now under construction, and environmental review has begun on the new 
berthing facilities while additional funds are sought to construct the harbor. 

Commuter Ferry Operations 

In the 1920s and 30s, the Ferry Building was said to be the world's second busiest terminal, 
behind London's Charing Cross Station. More than 170 ferries arrived and departed each day 
from eight berths, with approximately 50 million riders per year passing through its gates. The 
completion of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges in the late 1930s caused a dramatic reduction 
in the once thriving passenger and cargo ferry industry, rendering many of the Port's finger 
piers obsolete. Ferry service from the Ferry Building was discontinued in 1958. 

Today ferries dock at Pier 1/2 just north of the Ferry Building and at Ferry Plaza, behind the 
building. Although in recent years there has been a resurgent interest in ferries, ridership 
remains modest compared to historic levels. Nevertheless, commuter and recreational riders 
made approximately 2.8 million ferry trips last year, and this number is expected to grow to 
over 4 million over the next decade according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission 
(MTC). Interest in non-commuter waterborne modes of transit, such as water taxis and an 
airport hovercraft, also has been rising as local roads and highways become more congested. 

Two critical factors that will determine the ultimate growth of commuter ferry ridership are: 1) 
changes in the technology of ferry boats, and 2) the continuation of operating subsidies. It 
breakthroughs in ferry technology lead to a reduction in commute times, and if the price of a 
ride is competitive with other forms of transportation, then demand will continue grow for new 
facilities. The entire Bay Area regional ferry system is centered at the Ferry Building, where 
all existing and proposed commuter routes terminate. But, as Mission Bay and other new 
waterfront neighborhoods emerge, smaller ferries or water-taxis could become a popular means 
of traveling along other parts of the waterfront. 

The Port has received over $10 million in state and federal grants to upgrade and expand terr\ 
facilities at the Ferry Building. The Ferry Terminal upgrade project currently under* a\ 
involves an additional landing barge, reconfiguration of deck areas, construction of a breakwater 
to allow safe installation of the additional barge, covered waiting areas, signage and passenger 
drop off and pick up areas. All of this work is being closely coordinated with the plans for the 
renovation of the Ferry Building. Renovation of the Ferry Building as a regional transportation 
complex emphasizing waterborne transportation may require a significant public subsid) 



A - 7 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



Historic Ships 

In San Francisco historic ships are concentrated at the San Francisco Maritime National Historic 
Park on the Hyde Street Pier at Fisherman's Wharf. This floating national park attracts 150,000 
visitors each year. On the east side of Pier 45, the USS Pampanito also attracts 200,000 visitors 
each year. And approximately 450,000 visitors each year go to the Maritime Museum in nearby 
Aquatic Park. Like the excursion industry, the market for historic vessels is significantly 
enhanced and dependent on the presence of the City's large number of visitors. As a result, 
historic ship berths at Fisherman's Wharf, with its higher level of foot traffic, are currently more 
desirable than berths located elsewhere along the waterfront. Berths with direct visibility from 
The Embarcadero are most attractive of all. An exception to this general rule is the historic 
ferry Santa Rosa at Pier 3, which is used for maritime offices and special events not requiring 
a highly visible location. 

Much like the excursion boat market, growth in the visitor industry should generally result in 
growth in the number of potential customers touring historic vessels. Operators of the historic 
vessels have identified a need for additional facilities to accommodate anticipated growth in the 
number of visitors, and to address deficiencies in existing facilities. In particular, the National 
Park Service has three ships temporarily berthed in Sausalito and one at Fort Mason because 
there is no room for them at the Hyde Street Pier. At Fisherman's Wharf, the parking shortage 
is a disadvantage for the Maritime Park. Bus tours visiting the Park have difficulty loading and 
unloading and finding layover parking. Exhibition display space, storage and support facilities, 
such as a space for boat repair shops and restrooms for visitors, are also in short supply. Also, 
historic ships used for offices and special events need parking for visitors. 

The Port's revenue stream from historic ships is not sufficient to cover the capital improvement 
costs necessary for placement of additional historic vessels. In light of the Port's weak financial 
condition, it is doubtful that the Port can subsidize historic vessels. On the other hand, historic 
ship berths could be provided as a component in a mixed use, maritime-oriented commercial 
development. For example, the Ferry Building area would be ideal for such an amenity because 
of the area's large numbers of pedestrians and outstanding public transit service. 

Recreational Boating and Water Activities 

San Francisco Bay is one of the most exhilarating places in the world for recreational boating 
and water activities, including cruising, racing, kayaking, swimming, windsurfing, rowing and 
sailing. 

During the early 1980s, two marinas were built on Port property, at Pier 39 and the South Beach 
Harbor. Today, high capital costs and uncertain revenue streams make marina development 
risky without supporting commercial uses. As evidenced by the South Beach Harbor marina, 
revenues raised from berthing rentals alone may be insufficient to support the costs of new 
marinas. Commercial development in conjunction with marina development provides additional 
revenue to help the financial feasibility of the overall project. Marinas, in turn, attract visitors 
and customers for adjacent commercial development. 



A - 8 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



The demand for new berths has slowed in recent years, and the number of registered pleasure 
boats in San Francisco actually declined from 1975 to 1991. Nevertheless, the market for 
recreational boating has remained fairly stable, and there are opportunities for expansion due to 
the aging "baby-boomer" generation with increased disposable income and leisure time. In the 
meantime, there is an acute shortage of slips for boats less than 26 feet in length. The waiting 
list for smaller slips at the South Beach Marina is over 100 years long. As a result, small boat 
owners often "overpay" for larger berths than they actually need. 

In recent years, San Francisco has become increasingly popular as a sailing destination for short 
term visits and excursions, raising demand for short term berthing particularly during holidays 
and weekends. There is a consensus among the boating community that San Francisco should 
offer more opportunities for free or inexpensive buoys and floating docks for temporary berthing 
or mooring. Such facilities are most desirable near waterfront restaurants and public attractions. 
New commercial establishments could provide such facilities, enticing new patrons while also 
providing waterfront projects with a maritime ambience. However, the potentially high cost to 
comply with the American Disabilities Act and protect property owners from general liability 
exposure may impede provision of these berthing and mooring facilities at a low cost. 

Currently, the City only has one public launch facility for trailerable boats and non-motorized 
small craft, and it is in poor condition. On busy days in the summer months, there can be as 
many as thirty boats on trailers waiting to gain access to this one facility. In addition, there is 
insufficient off-street parking for boat trailers near the launch, and there is insufficient dry 
storage for small boats. Additional facilities also are required to meet the boat repair and haul 
out needs of recreational boaters. Public funding for these improvements is difficult to obtain. 
However, small boat facilities such as a public launch could conceivably be funded as a 
condition of other waterfront projects. For example, facilities for launching small boats could 
be developed in tandem with businesses supplying food, equipment, bait and or sailing lessons. 

Temporary and Ceremonial Berthing 

The Port receives requests for temporary and ceremonial berthing facilities from ships, 
commercial fishing boats, yachts and pleasure boats, as well as from the U.S. Coast Guard and 
Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and foreign navies. These ships berth 
for time periods ranging from a few hours to a few weeks, depending on whether they arc 
calling at the Port to load and unload materials, make minor repairs, provide shore visits for 
crew members or ship visits for the public, or layover between assignments. While the number 
of temporary berthings has been relatively stable in the past few years (130 in 1990, 137 in 
1991, 139 in 1992, and 134 in 1993) the rate at which they will occur in future years is difficult 
to predict. 

The Port also provides berthing for ceremonial ships. Despite the Port's favorable location and 
San Francisco's reputation as an international cultural and tourist center, demand for this use has 
been erratic because promotional and special events are not routine. In recent years, the demand 
for ceremonial berthing varied from 45 visits in 1990, to 78 in 1991. 



A - 9 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revisions (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix A: Background Analysis 



In order to accommodate the full range of temporary and ceremonial vessel needs, berthing 
facilities ideally should include truck access and turnaround areas, utilities, strong pier 
substructures and fender systems, parking, and security. Because of the irregularity of demand 
for these facilities, and the limited revenues to support improvements and maintenance, these 
activities are best accommodated through facilities shared with other users. Although revenues 
from this activity may not be sufficient to fund improvements, this use would be an ideal 
♦ attraction and complement to mixed use projects on the waterfront. 

Dredging 

Although the Port is a naturally deep harbor, annual dredging is required to maintain berth and 
channel depths. Regulations governing dredging have recently become more complex and 
costly. Because of the decreased capacity at existing in-bay disposal sites and growing concerns 
about the potential environmental impacts of dredging, the entire Bay Area faces limitations on 
the ability to dredge in the near - and long-term future. A $16 million regional "Long-Term 
Management Strategy for Dredged Material Disposal" ("LTMS")is underway to establish a 50 
year strategy and alternatives for disposing of dredged materials in the most economical and 
environmentally sensitive way. The conclusions so far indicate that while ocean and upland 
disposal alternatives may provide new capacity, future testing and disposal costs will be far more 
expensive than in the past. For example, in 1991/92 dredging costs for newsprint cargo shipping 
operations at Piers 27-29 went from 6% of total revenues for in-bay disposal to about 85% of 
total revenues for upland disposal. 

In the meantime, the Port of San Francisco has reduced its annual dredging to serve only those 
facilities that have urgent and immediate needs. As a result, the Port has had to relocate cargo 
shipping tenants from the Port's China Basin break-bulk terminal to other marine terminals, and 
the China Basin terminal will most likely be re-leased for uses that do not require deep water 

access. 

These recent examples indicate the potentially devastating land use and financial impacts the Port 
faces with respect to dredging. In addition, the Port is now required to fund water quality 
regional monitoring programs and new permit fees. New opportunities to generate revenues 
must be found to help offset the increasing dredging costs associated with maritime operations. 



AC/pj/l:...\draftpln.3\Appendix A 



A - 10 



APPENDIX B 



TEXT OF PROPOSITION H ORDINANCE 



Be it ordained by the people of the City and County of San Francisco that the Administrative 
Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter as follows: 

Section 1 - Findings and Declaration of Policy 

The people of the City and County of San Francisco find and declare: 

a. Whereas, the waterfront of San Francisco is an irreplaceable public resource of 
the highest value; 

b. Whereas, the most beneficial and appropriate use of the waterfront is for 
purposes related to and dependent on their proximity to San Francisco Bay and 
the Pacific Ocean, such as maritime uses, public access to, and restoration of. 
San Francisco Bay; 

c. Whereas, San Francisco holds the waterfront in Trust for the People of 
California; 

d. Whereas, maritime uses, public access to, and restoration of San Francisco 
Bay serve San Francisco residents, and provide significant economic, social 
and environmental benefits to San Francisco and its residents, including a 
diversity of employment opportunities and better access to a healthier San 
Francisco Bay; 

e. Whereas, the waterfront contains structures of historical and architectural 
importance; 

f. Whereas, it is poor planning to approve waterfront land uses on an ad hoc 
basis, rather than as part of a comprehensive waterfront land use plan; 

g. Whereas, it is in the interest of San Francisco to develop a strong and 
economically vital waterfront with adequate public access to and restoration of 
San Francisco Bay; and 

h. Whereas, changing conditions in the maritime industry such as deeper draft 
vessels and increased awareness of the negative environmental impacts ol 



B - 1 



Text of Proposition H Ordinance 



Appendix B 



dredging and dredge-spoil dumping indicate that cargo handling at the Port of 
San Francisco could increase dramatically; 

Therefore the people of San Francisco declare that it is the policy of the City and County of 
San Francisco that: 

a. the waterfront be reserved for maritime uses, public access, and projects which 
aid in the preservation and restoration of the environment; 

b. where such land uses are infeasible or impossible, only acceptable non- 
maritime land uses as set forth in this ordinance shall be allowed; 

c. a waterfront land use plan shall be prepared (as set forth in Section 2 of this 
ordinance) to further define acceptable and unacceptable non-maritime land 
uses and to assign land uses for specific waterfront parcels. 

Section 2. - Land Use Planning Process 

a. Upon adoption of this initiative, the Board of Supervisors shall within 30 days 
request the Port Commission to prepare a "Waterfront Land Use Plan" which 
is consistent with the terms of this initiative for waterfront lands as defined by 
this ordinance. Should the Port Commission not agree to this request within 
30 days of the Board of Supervisors request, the Board of Supervisors shall 
have 30 days to designate a different City agency or department to prepare the 
"Waterfront Land Use Plan". 

b. The agency drafting the "Waterfront Land Use Plan shall consult the City 
Planning Commission to ensure development of a plan consistent with the 
City's Master Plan. The final plan and any subsequent amendments thereto 
shall be subject to a public hearing conducted by the City Planning 
Commission to ensure consistency between that plan and the City's Master 
Plan. 

c. The "Waterfront Land Use Plan" shall define land uses in terms of the 
following categories: 

1. Maritime land uses; 2. Acceptable non-maritime land uses; and 3. 
Unacceptable non-maritime land uses. 

Land uses included in these categpries which are not part of the initial 
ordinance shall be added to Sections 3 through 5 of this ordinance as 



B - 2 



Text of Proposition H Ordinance 



Appendix B 



appropriate. No deletions from Sections 3 through 5 shall be allowed unless 
approved by the voters of San Francisco; 

d. No City agency or officer may take, or permit to be taken, any action to 
permit the new development of any non-maritime land use (except those land 
uses set forth in Section 4 below) on the waterfront until the "Waterfront Land 
Use Plan" has been completed. Non-maritime land uses existing, or which 
have all their necessary permits, as of January 1, 1990 shall be exempt from 
this limitation. 

e. The "Waterfront Land Use Plan" shall be reviewed by the agency which 
prepared it or by such other agency designated by the Board of Supervisors at 
a minimum of every five years, with a view toward making any necessary 
amendments consistent with this initiative. 

f. The "Waterfront Land Use Plan" shall be prepared with the maximum feasible 
public input. 

Section 3. — Maritime Land Uses 

Maritime Land Uses include but are not limited to: 

a. Maritime cargo handling and storage facilities; b.Ship repair facilities; c. Fish 
processing facilities; d. Marinas and boat launch ramps; e. Ferry boat terminals; f. 
Cruise ship terminals; g. Excursion and charter boat facilities and terminals; h. Ship 
berthing facilities; i. Maritime construction and maritime salvage facilities; j. Marine 
equipment and supply facilities; k. A list of additional maritime land uses developed 
as part of the Waterfront Land Use Planning process shall be included in the 
"Waterfront Land Use Plan" and added to this section. 

Section 4. ~ Acceptable Non-maritime Land Uses 

Acceptable non-maritime land uses include but are not limited to: 

a. Parks; b. Esplanades; c. Wildlife habitat; d. Recreational fishing piers, e. 
Restoration of the ecology of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline; f. Transit and 
traffic facilities; and g. A list of additional acceptable non-maritime land uses 
developed as part of the Waterfront Land Use Planning process shall be included in 
the "Waterfront Land Use Plan" and added to this section. 



B - 3 



Text of Proposition H Ordinance 



Appendix B 



Section 5. ~ Unacceptable Non-Maritime Land Uses 

a. Criteria for Consideration in Determining Unacceptable Non-maritime Land 

Uses Criteria to be considered in making findings regarding the acceptability 
of any specific land use on the waterfront shall include but are not limited to: 

1 . Does the land use need to be located on the waterfront in order to serve its 
basic function? 2. Is the land use compatible with existing or planned maritime 
operations on surrounding parcels if any? 3. Does the land use provide the 
maximum feasible public access? 4. Does the land use improve the ecological 
balance of San Francisco Bay? 5. Does the land use protect the waterfront's 
architectural heritage? 6. Does the land use represent the best interests of the 
people of the City and County of San Francisco and/or State of California? 

b. Prohibition of Unacceptable Non-maritime Land Uses 

No City agency or officer may take, or permit to be taken, any action to 
permit the development of any unacceptable non-maritime land use (as set 
forth below) on the waterfront. 

c. Listing of Unacceptable Non-maritime Land Uses 

The following land uses are found to be unacceptable non-maritime land uses: 
1. Hotels 

The City finds that hotels do not need to be located on the waterfront, and 
permitting their development on the waterfront will displace or preclude 
maritime uses; 

The City finds that waterfront hotels do not provide the economic benefits 
provided by maritime employment; 

The City finds that waterfront hotels do not provide high quality public access 
to, or permit restoration of, San Francisco Bay; 

The City finds that waterfront -hotels do not serve the needs of San Francisco 
or its residents; 



B - 4 



Text of Proposition H Ordinance 



Appendix B 



The City therefore finds that hotels are an unacceptable non-maritime land use 
and shall not be permitted on the waterfront. 

2. A list of additional unacceptable non-maritime land uses developed as 

part of the Water-front Land Use Planning process shall be included in 
the "Waterfront Land Use Plan" and added to this section. 

d. Grandfathering of Existing Unacceptable Non-maritime Land Uses. 

This initiative shall not prevent any unacceptable non-maritime land uses 
existing as of January 1, 1990 from continuing in operation or expanding on 
its existing site in a manner consistent with all other applicable laws 
regulations. At such time as a new land use is proposed for the site of a 
business existing as of January 1, 1990 that new land use must meet the 
conditions set forth in this ordinance. 

Section 6. — Definitions 

a. "City agency or officer" means the Board of Supervisors, and all other city 
commissions, boards, officers, employees, departments or entities whose 
exercise of powers can be affected by initiative. 

b. "Action" includes, but is not limited to: 

1. amendments to the Planning Code, and Master Plan; 2. issuance of permits 
or entitlement for use by any City agency or officers; 3. approval, 
modification or reversal of decisions or actions by subordinate City agencies or 
officers; 4. approval of sales or leases pursuant to Section 7.402 and 7.402-1 
of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco; 5. approval of or 
amendments to Redevelopment Plans; and 6. any other action, including but 
not limited to projects as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21065. 

c. "Waterfront" means land transferred to the City and County of San Francisco 
pursuant to Chapter 1333 of the Statutes of 1968, as well as any other propcrn 
which is owned by or under the control of the Port Commission of San 
Francisco, and which is also in any of the following areas: 

1 . piers; 



B - 5 



Text of Proposition H Ordinance 



Appendix B 



2. the shoreline band as defined in Government Code Section 66610(b), 
between the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the intersection 
of The Embarcadero and Berry Street, except for the area south of 
Jefferson Street between Hyde Street and Powell Street. 

3. the shoreline band as defined in Government Code Section 66610(b), in 
the area bounded by San Francisco Bay, Berry, Third, and Evans 
Street, Hunter's Point Boulevard, and a straight line from the 
intersection of Hunter's Point Boulevard and Innis Avenue to the 
intersection of Carroll Avenue and Fitch Street; and 

4. the area south of Pier 98 in which all new development is subject to the 
Shoreline Guidelines, as shown on Map 8 (Eastern Shoreline Plan) of 
the Recreation and Open Space Element of the San Francisco Master 
Plan, in effect as of January 1, 1990. 

d. "San Francisco Bay" means the area defined in Government Code Section 
66610(a) which is in the City and County of San Francisco, except for areas 
west of Third Street. 

e. All references to public roads are to their alignments as of January 1, 1990. 



f. "Hotel" means any use falling within the definition in Section 314.1(g) of the 
San Francisco Planning Code in effect as of January 1, 1990; any waterside 
hotel having docks to accommodate persons traveling by boat; or any facilities 
for providing temporary or transient occupancy. This shall not include boat 
berths which are provided for temporary moorage of boats. 

Section 7. — Implementation 

Within 180 days of the effective date of this ordinance, the City and County shall: 

a. amend its Master Plan, Planning Code, and other relevant plans and codes in a 
manner consistent with this ordinance; 

b. request and apply for conforming amendments to all applicable state and 
regional plans and regulations; and 

c. begin preparation of the "Waterfront Land Use Plan" required under Section 2 
of this ordinance. 



B - 6 



Text of Proposition H Ordinance 



Appendix B 



Section 8 ~ Severability 

If any portion of this ordinance, or the application thereof, is hereafter determined to be 
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance, or 
application thereof, shall remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, 
phrase, part, or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed irrespective of 
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts or portions be 
declared invalid or unconstitutional. 

Section 9. — Amendment and Repeal 

No part of this ordinance or the amendments made pursuant to Section 7 hereof may be 
amended or repealed except by a vote of the electors of the City and County of San 
Francisco, except for those additional listings provided herein in Sections 3, 4 and 5. 

Section 10. - Chaptering of this Ordinance 

After the adoption of this ordinance the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall assign a 
Chapter number to this ordinance and shall renumber the sections of this ordinance in an 
appropriate manner. 



DO/fj/I:PropH 



B - 7 



APPENDIX C 



GLOSSARY OF TERMS 



Academic Institutions — Institutions or classrooms for educational purposes, including but not 
limited to: academic, professional, cultural, business, technical,, industrial arts, fine arts or other 
types of education. 

Accessory Parking - Parking which is associated with existing Port activities or which is 
provided as a requirement for new development. 

Artist/Designer Studios and Galleries ~ Facilities for artisans and designers (e.g. artists, 
designers, craftpersons, graphic artists, sculptors, wood workers, etc.) including but not limited 
to: space for manufacturing/creating , exhibiting and/or selling of products (e.g. studios, 
galleries, workshops, warehouses), which shall not be used for residences unless all applicable 
local and state authorizations are obtained. 

Assembly and Entertainment - Facilities for entertainment and attractions including but not 
limited to: band shells, auditoriums, theaters (cinemas and live performances), night clubs, 
amusement parks, conference, convention and event facilities, exhibition halls, public markets 
and children's entertainment. 

Bay Oriented Commercial Recreation and Public Assembly Uses -- Facilities specifically 
designed to attract large numbers of people to enjoy the Bay and its shoreline, such as 
restaurants, specialty shops and hotels. (San Francisco Bay Plan, p. 36) 

Break-bulk ~ Freight that generally is made up of similar sized pieces that is loaded into or 
unloaded from a ship's hold in small bulk quantities, usually loosely, on a pallet or in a cargo 
net. Breakbulk was the traditional method of cargo handling along the Port's finger piers before 
innovations in container cargo shipping. 

Break Bulk Cargo — Cargo consisting of similar sized pieces which arc loaded in crates or on 
pallets. 

Bulk Cargo — Cargo which is loaded in loose holds, compartments or tank s of a sh i p 

Bulkhead Buildings ~ Structures, generally built on top of the seawall north of China Basin 
Channel, most of which extend between pierhead buildings. 

Bulkh e ad Buildings — Th e two story buildings at th e front of many of th e pi e r s along the 
Embarcadero, which were built on top of the "bulkhead" (or seawa l l). 

Burton Act - State legislation that sets the terms and conditions for the transfer of Port proncm 
to the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco, and subject to control and 
management by a local Port Commission. (California Statutes, Chapter 1333, 1968.) 



C - 1 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revision (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix C: Glossary of Terms 



California State Lands Commission — A State agency with jurisdiction over the lands granted 
in trust to the Port of San Francisco. Commission staff monitors Port activities and projects to 
ensure compliance with the Burton Act (legislation that transferred Port lands to the City) and 
the public trust doctrine. 



Cargo Shipping 


~ Primary, 


support and ancillary facilities for waterborne 


transport of cargo 


snipped in container boxes 


or 


in bulk 


(dry bulk, 1 


iquid bulk, 


break-bulk, neo-bulk) including but 


not li 


united 


to; s 


hipping 


terminals 


and berths 


, cargo 


handling, storage 


and warehousing, 


equipment storage and repair 


facilities, cargo 


sourcing, container 


freight stations, freight rail and 


truck access, shij 


5 servicing, 


administrative 


functions, and 


1 employee support services* (e.g. 



Community Facilities - Public safety and community service facilities, including but not limited 
to: fire and police stations, postal services, day care, health care, libraries, community meeting 
rooms, and medical emergency helipad. 



Container Cargo — Cargo which is pr e load e d transported into standard sized boxes. 



Cruise - Primary , support and ancillary facilities for large, generally international passenger 
cruise vessels with sleeping accommodations typically for over 250 passengers (e.g. ships 
providing long-distance vacation and recreation voyages that may include gaming, dining and 
entertainment on board), including but not limited to: passenger terminals and berthing areas, 
waiting and customs areas, publicly accessible bon voyage and greeting areas, and passenger- 
serving retail, entertainment and commercial services, ship servicing areas, bus, taxi and visitor 
pick-up/drop-off and parking areas. 

Dry Bulk — Dry loose freight, such as grain and various ores, that is loaded or unloaded via 
conveyor belts, spouts or scoops. 

Ferry & Excursion Boats and Water Taxis — Primary, support and ancillary facilities for 
water borne transportation (e,g. commuter ferries, water taxis, hovercrafts) or short-term 
excursions (e.g. charter boats, mini-cruises, sight-seeing, gaming, dining and entertainment on 
the water) including but not limited to: passenger terminals and berthing areas, storage, 
employee or passenger parking, administrative functions, ship servicing areas, layover berths, 
fueling stations and other boat or passenger services. 

Fill — As defined in the McAteer-Petris Act which created the Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission, fill means "earth or any other substance or material including pilings 
or structures placed on pilings, and structures floating at some or all times and moored for 
extended periods, such as houseboats and floating docks." 



Fill Credit - A proposed concept whereby existing fill could be removed and relocated to 
another site. 



C-2 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revision (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix C: Glossary of Terms 



Fishing Industry - Primary, support and ancillary facilities for commercial or sport fishing 
operations including but not limited to: fishing boat berths and harbors, fish processing, handling 
(e.g. cleaning and packing) and distribution facilities, support services (e.g. fuel docks, 
Fisherman's Wharf Chapel, fishing research and education facilities), storage, maintenance and 
administrative functions, and employee services (e.g. training facilities and parking). 



General Industry -~ Facilities for enclosed and open air industrial activities* including but not 
limited to: recycling operations, automobile repair and related services, bio-remediation, sand 
and gravel operations, transmission facilities, and manufacturing operations. 

Historic Ships - Primary, support and ancillary facilities for display of historic vessels 
including but not limited to: berthing areas, museum/exhibit and administrative space, storage 
maintenance and workshop space and employee and visitor parking. 



Hotel Facilities for overnight lodging, including hotels, boatels, bed and breakfast (except 
for overnight lodging on ships that is consistent with a primary water-dependent use (e.g. 
temporary or ceremonial berthing, recreational berthing, etc.)] 



Liquid Bulk - 


- Liquid 


freight, such as petroleum or vegetable oil, that is shipped in tankers 


rather man in ( 


hums 


or 


other small, individual units. 





Maritime — A general term used to describe industrial, or commercial or recreation activities 
related to water-borne commerce,-and navigation and recreation, including but not limited to: 
cargo shipping, ship repair, ferries and excursion boats, cruises, recreational boating, historic 
ships, fishing industry, berthing. 



Maritime Office - Administrative and business functions for any maritime industry including, 
but not limited to: import/export businesses, legal and professional services. 

Maritime S upport — Bu s in e s se s or activiti es that provid e s upport se rvices to wat e r d e p e nd e nt 
industries such as tug and tow operators, cargo sourcing and warehousing, trucking, e tc 
Support s e rvic e s can b e water d e pendent ( e g. tug boats) or non wat e r d e p e nd e nt ( e g. trucking) 

Maritime Support Services - Ancillary functions needed to support maritime activities 
including but not limited to: tug and tow operations, bar pilots, ship chandlers, associated 
parking and maintenance, equipment storage, repair and warehouse facilities, environmental 
services, Foreign Trade Zone and Port maintenance. 

McAteer-Petrts Act ~ An Act passed by the State legislative in 1969 which created the San 
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 

Museums - Includes but is not limited to: facilities for exhibits on San Francisco history, 
maritime history, ongoing exhibitions, cultural and exhibit space, etc. 



C - 3 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revision (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix C: Glossary of Terms 



Neo-bufl* -- Freight such as autos, steel products and newsprint paper rolls that is shipped in 
large bulk quantities. 

Non-Accessory Parking - Parking open to general public use which is not specifically to serve 
existing Port activities or required for new development. 

Non- Water Dependent Activities — Activities and land uses that do not require access to the 
water in order to function. 

Office — Includes but is not limited to: administrative, management, executive, business service, 
research and development, and professional services for small and large companies. 

Open Space - Includes but is not limited to: parks, wildlife habitat, wetlands, large plazas, tot 
lots, fishing piers and related public amenities. 

Parking — Includes but is not limited to: surface parking lots or above or below grade garages. 
(See also Accessory Parking and Non-Accessory Parking.) 

Pierhead Buildings -- Structures, generally built on top of the seawall and spanning the width 
of the pier, which are the entrances to piers. 

Piers ~ Pile-supported structures over water, that generally have more regulatory restrictions 
imposed on their use than other Port facilities. The fact that a Port facility is, or is not, 
commonly referred to as a "pier" does not necessarily mean it is in fact a Pier. The actual 
construction characteristics, as opposed to the common names of facilities, is the deterrnining 
factor. 

Port Strategic Plan — In 1990, the Port completed a comprehensive review and analysis of Port 
policies, business and development options, facility conditions, market opportunities, political 
and regulatory context, and tenant and customer relations. The product was a strategic plan, the 
main principals of which are embodied in a mission statement, goals and strategic objectives. 

Port-Priority Use and Port-Priority Use Areas - The BCDC/MTC Seaport Plan designates 
areas that should be reserved for port priority uses, including marine terminals and directly- 
related ancillary activities such as container freight stations, transit sheds and other temporary 
storage, ship repair, and support transportation uses including trucking and railroad yards, 
freight forwarders, government offices related to the port activity, chandlers and marine 
services. Uses that are permitted within port-priority use areas may also include public access 
and public and commercial recreational development, provided they do not significantly impair 
the efficient utilization of the port area. 



C-4 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revision (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix C: Glossary of Terms 



Port Walk - Integrated public access walkways and amenities extending onto piers, where 
feasible, as major new mixed use developments occur. The Port Walk will guide pedestrians 
through waterfront activity areas and connect with the pedestrian improvements currently under 
construction along the Embarcadero. 

Power Plants — Facilities and utility installations to generate power including, but not limited 
to , cogeneration power plants. 

Proposition H ~ A ballot measure adopted by San Francisco voters in November 1990 that 
imposed a moratorium on new "non-maritime" development pending completion of a land use 
plan for a portion of the waterfront property under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco, 
and prohibited hotel developments or boatels on that property. 

Public Access - Areas or features that are open to the public, often provided as part of new 
development, inchiding but not limited to: esplanades, boardwalks, pedestrian access to piers, 
small plazas, visual or informational displays, kiosks, signage, public fishing and viewing areas 
and related public amenities. 

Public Trust ~ Under the public trust doctrine, title to tidelands and lands under navigable 
waters, as existed at the time that California became a state, is held in trust by the State for the 
benefit of the public and must be used for purposes of commerce, navigation and fishing as well 
as for environmental and recreational purposes. The Port of San Francisco is the trustee for 
public trust lands granted to the City by State legislation in 1968 (i.e. the Burton Act). 

Recreational Boating and Water Use ~ Primary, support and ancillary facilities for recreational 
boating and other water sport enthusiasts (e.g. swimmers, kayakers and windsurfers) including 
but not limited to: sailing center for yachting events, swuruning, rowing and boating clubs, 
marinas, visiting boat docks and moorings, boat rental facilities, boat launches, fueling stations, 
repair and dry storage facilities, adnurustrative functions, visitor, boat trailer and employee 
parking, public restrooms, and other public facilities. 

Recreational Enterprise - Facilities for recreation-oriented activities including but not limited 
to: athletic fitness facilities, indoor and outdoor sports courts, jogging tracks, health and fitness 
centers and other recreation amenities. 

Residential Includes but is not limited to: multi-family unit developments, live- work space, 
RV park (in the southern waterfront). 

Retail ~ Retail sales of goods and services, including but not limited to: restaurants and other 
eating and drinking establishments, personal services, dry goods, public markets, retail outlets, 
gas stations and carwashes. 



C - 5 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revision (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix C: Glossary of Terms 



San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission - A state-created agency with 
authority to permit or deny any project in or over the San Francisco Bay or within 100 feet of 
the shoreline, after reviewing the project in light of specified criteria. BCDC's responsibilities 
include protecting San Francisco Bay from excessive fill and preserving the Bay waterfront for 
Bay-oriented or water-dependent uses. 

Seawall Lots (or "SWL") — Parcels of land owned by the Port that are located inland from the 
Bay shoreline. 

Ship Repair - Primary, support and ancillary facilities for repair, restoration, and maintenance 
of large and small vessels, including but not limited to: drydock and berthing areas, warehouses, 
workshop and storage areas, administrative functions, and employee support services, (e.g. 
training facilities, parking). 

Sports Facilities ~ Facilities that accommodate professional sports events such as basketball, 
baseball, hockey and tennis, which also may be used for non-sport related performances and 
events, including but not limited to arenas and ballparks, with support and accessory activities 
such as food services, automobile, bus and taxi parking, pick-up and drop-off zones. 

Temporary & Ceremonial Berthing - Primary, support and ancillary facilities for berthing of 
historic, military or other visiting vessels on a temporary basis including but not limited to: 
berthing and passenger greeting, bon voyage and waiting areas, bus, taxi and visitor pick- 
up/drop-off and parking areas. 

Transportation Services ~ Facilities for land-based, water-borne or intermodai (e.g. 
connections between water and land transportation services) transportation operations, including 
but not limited to: transit and traffic facilities, areas for ticket sales, passenger information and 
waiting, bus, automobile, taxi, pedicab and horsedrawn carriage staging areas and pick-up and 
drop-off zones, and related administrative functions. 



Visitor Center ~ Facilities and information 
limited to: programs providing education and 


services or 
information 


ietu 

to ; 


ed to visitors, including but not 
acquaint visitors with current and 


historical 


activities of the Port, 


the City^ maritime operations or 


similar programs. 



Warehousing/Storage — Includes but is not limited to: facilities for storage generally in 
enclosed buildings, and related transport and distribution of general (non-maritime cargo) goods. 
On piers or within 100 feet of the shoreline, mini-storage warehouses are prohibited. 



Water-Dependent Activities — Activities, businesses or industries that depend on a waterfront 
location to function, such as cargo-related actiyities, berthing of historic, ceremonial or other 
ships, ferry and excursion boat operations, fishing industry uses, maritime support uses, 
recreational boating and water use, ship repair, and water taxi docking. 



C - 6 



Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Proposed Port Commission Revision (Nov. 4, 1994) 



Appendix C: Glossary of Terms 



Water-Oriented Uses — Under the McAteer-Petris Act, BCDC can permit Bay fill only for 
certain "water-oriented" uses specified in the law or "minor fill for improving shoreline 
appearance or public access to the Bay. " The water-oriented uses the law permits include water- 
related industry, bridges, wildlife refuges, and water-oriented recreation and public assembly. 
Housing and offices are not considered water-oriented uses. 



Wholesale Trade/IYomotion Center - Facilities for wholesale storage, promotion, sales and 
distribution of products, including but not limited to: exhibition and amference spaces, ancillary 
space for promotional displays and demonstrations, and marketing services, particularly those 
that enhance international trade. 



AC/fj/L:GLOSSARY